On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 06:37:12PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > * Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 04:51:21PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm currently working on a platform that comes with an FPGA connected to the > > > CPU via a PCIe interface The FPGA will eventually integrate several IP cores, > > > some of them being open (OpenCores). I would like to mainline any drivers for > > > those cores, but that raises the problem of the vendor ID. Is there any > > > procedure for providing Linux drivers supporting devices which do not have a > > > registered vendor and/or device ID? > > > > Why do you not have a registered vendor device id? You aren't "allowed" > > to create a PCI device without one from what I can tell. > > Because my employer has never had a need for one before. The devices will be > embedded and from what I hear it seems common practice to just assign vendor > and device IDs at random in embedded devices. The reason being that the > hardware is always known and there won't be any ID clashes. Heh, I can't wait for the PCI-SIG to find out about that :) > > > Would it be acceptable to make vendor and device IDs configurable via > > > Kconfig? > > > > You can dynamically add vendor/device ids to drivers from userspace > > today, no need to build it in through Kconfig selections. > > Great, that would be a good alternative then. Would it be acceptable to > mainline the drivers without a predefined vendor/device ID pair and add > supported pairs from userspace later? Yes, that would work. Then when people have a "real" product, the ids can be added later to the driver code. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
