Re: Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: Add vendor ID for QUECTEL

[Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 02:09:57PM +0800, Slark Xiao wrote:
> At 2022-11-01 12:46:19, "Greg KH" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 10:10:52AM +0800, Slark Xiao wrote:
> >> n MHI driver, there are some companies' product still do not have their
> >> own PCI vendor macro. So we add it here to make the code neat. Ref ID
> >> could be found in link https://pcisig.com/membership/member-companies.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Slark Xiao <slark_xiao@163.com>
> >> ---
> >> v3: Separate different vendors into different patch.
> >> 
> >> v2: Update vendor ID to the right location sorted by numeric value.
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/bus/mhi/host/pci_generic.c | 6 +++---
> >>  include/linux/pci_ids.h            | 2 ++
> >>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/pci_generic.c b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/pci_generic.c
> >> index caa4ce28cf9e..81ae9c49ce2a 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/bus/mhi/host/pci_generic.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/bus/mhi/host/pci_generic.c
> >> @@ -555,11 +555,11 @@ static const struct pci_device_id mhi_pci_id_table[] = {
> >>  		.driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t) &mhi_telit_fn990_info },
> >>  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QCOM, 0x0308),
> >>  		.driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t) &mhi_qcom_sdx65_info },
> >> -	{ PCI_DEVICE(0x1eac, 0x1001), /* EM120R-GL (sdx24) */
> >> +	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QUECTEL, 0x1001), /* EM120R-GL (sdx24) */
> >>  		.driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t) &mhi_quectel_em1xx_info },
> >> -	{ PCI_DEVICE(0x1eac, 0x1002), /* EM160R-GL (sdx24) */
> >> +	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QUECTEL, 0x1002), /* EM160R-GL (sdx24) */
> >>  		.driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t) &mhi_quectel_em1xx_info },
> >> -	{ PCI_DEVICE(0x1eac, 0x2001), /* EM120R-GL for FCCL (sdx24) */
> >> +	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_QUECTEL, 0x2001), /* EM120R-GL for FCCL (sdx24) */
> >>  		.driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t) &mhi_quectel_em1xx_info },
> >>  	/* T99W175 (sdx55), Both for eSIM and Non-eSIM */
> >>  	{ PCI_DEVICE(PCI_VENDOR_ID_FOXCONN, 0xe0ab),
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/pci_ids.h b/include/linux/pci_ids.h
> >> index b362d90eb9b0..3c91461bcfe4 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/pci_ids.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/pci_ids.h
> >> @@ -2585,6 +2585,8 @@
> >>  #define PCI_VENDOR_ID_TEKRAM		0x1de1
> >>  #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_TEKRAM_DC290	0xdc29
> >>  
> >> +#define PCI_VENDOR_ID_QUECTEL		0x1eac
> >
> >Why did you ignore the comment at the top of this file saying that new
> >entries are not needed to be added, especially for just one user?
>
>  Actually I didn't see this notice before committing this patch. I even discussed 
> it with the maintainer for several times and nobody show me this rule.
> I have a concern, some IOT module vendors, like QUECTEL, CINTERION(THALES),
> SIERRA,ROLLING and so on, they only produce IOT modules without other 
> hardware with PCIe  interface, and they applied for their own VID. But they
> can't get a their own VENDOR MARCO? This seems unreasonable.
> This change should be harmless and  make the code neat.
> This is my opinion.

Sorry, this is my fault.  I have merged or acked several vendor ID
additions recently, but I don't really backport changes like Greg
does, so I'm not as sensitized to the churn and merge issues.

Bjorn