From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 789B6365 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 06:25:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 82934C433C1; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 06:25:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1667283943; bh=mlJmimxkA6At2KeXNHIHwlyw51azzVCcQYXn0odmMnM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZaYTGUAua51jIDMkF7n+sKxB/kviTU585ZQifuJ5LFoxdQUaZIiidKpIwcKwHgV03 PI+oq9Xpfhg0a7ObF4fVOLy11Nn146l2YrAMEoQSF9Umig0ZSwJYonqGZnQpoYxbVw qs6MfwNNSEH8Y40eKytU4G9i5Kr1+48pEjLtqpeg= Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2022 07:24:58 +0100 From: Greg KH To: Slark Xiao 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 Message-ID: References: <20221101021052.7532-1-slark_xiao@163.com> <3af61b4.1f11.18431cf918d.Coremail.slark_xiao@163.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: mhi@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3af61b4.1f11.18431cf918d.Coremail.slark_xiao@163.com> On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 02:09:57PM +0800, Slark Xiao wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 2022-11-01 12:46:19, "Greg KH" 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 > >> --- > >> 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. It causes a _LOT_ of churn and merge issues when everyone is adding new entries to a single file. Which is why, 15+ years ago, we made the decision that if a vendor or device id is only needed in one file, then it should not be added to the pci_ids.h file. No need to change that now, please just put the vendor id in the single driver that it is needed in. thanks, greg k-h