On Sun, Dec 03, 2023 at 07:48:41PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > 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. Which is long gone from this email thread, sorry. > NXP now > produces PCI devices with a different vendor ID. "Different" from what, the old one? > 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. I'm not asking why anything is being aliased, I'm asking why change the existing names. > > 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. So does your change here just revert the change in that commit, or does it do it in other places? thanks, greg k-h
