Tosoni wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:32:15PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
>>>>>> static struct pci_device_id serial_pci_tbl[] = {
>>>>>> + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_ADVANTECH,
>> PCI_DEVICE_ID_ADVANTECH_PCI3620,
>>>>>> + 0x3620, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0,
>>>> Why not use PCI_VENDOR_ID_ADVANTECH as PCI_SUBVENDOR_ID too?
>>> The Advantech vendor id is not 0x3620. This confused me as
>> well which is
>>> why I asked for an lspci. Advantech has stuck the device id in the
>>> subvendor bits and '1' in the subdevice (so it should be 1 not
>>> PCI_ANY_ID).
>> is this better?
>>
>> + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_ADVANTECH,
>> PCI_DEVICE_ID_ADVANTECH_PCI3620,
>> + PCI_DEVICE_ID_ADVANTECH_PCI3620, 1, 0, 0,
>
> Since the name describes a device id where it should be a (sub)vendor id,
> I would suggest that you add a line of comment to explain the case.
> So that no one will be tempted to change it back to PCI_VENDOR_ID_ADVANTECH
> in the future.
Definitely!
Niels
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
