On Sun, Dec 03, 2023 at 06:30:13PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sun, Dec 03, 2023 at 05:16:54PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:10:19AM +0000, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > Why would we remove name of the current company and use the name of a > > > > company that doesn't exist any more? > > > > > > Yes, this seems very odd. What is the reason for any of this other than > > > marketing? Kernel code doesn't do marketing :) > > > > I'm not sure who is doing the marketing; not me, that's for sure. > > The patch that I'm proposing undoes these strange aliases. > > Why? Why am I undoing the aliases? It's in my commit message. NXP now produces PCI devices with a different vendor ID. If aliasing is the way to go, then are we supposed to add a new PCI_VENDOR_ID_NXP2, PCI_VENDOR_ID_NXP3 etc? Mellanox was bought by Nvidia and I don't see its PCI ID aliased to Nvidia. There are probably countless of other examples. > Who did it originally in what commit id and what was wrong with them > then? Does it really matter? "Git blame" on the line with #define PCI_VENDOR_ID_NXP will point to a random commit by Wasim Khan (also CCed). The usage of PCI_VENDOR_ID_NXP is not widespread, it's only that commit. Everywhere else in the kernel, 0x1957 is referred to as PCI_VENDOR_ID_FREESCALE. I can't comment on what was wrong with Wasim.
