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

From: "Slark Xiao" <slark_xiao@163.com>
To: "Greg KH" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: mani@kernel.org, quic_hemantk@quicinc.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
	 loic.poulain@linaro.org, dnlplm@gmail.com,
	yonglin.tan@outlook.com,  mhi@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re:Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: Add vendor ID for QUECTEL
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2022 14:09:57 +0800 (CST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3af61b4.1f11.18431cf918d.Coremail.slark_xiao@163.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y2Ckm79PgcTcVVne@kroah.com>


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?
>
>thanks,
>
>greg k-h
Hi Greg,
 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.

Thanks
Slark Xiao