Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753037Ab3FZVRA (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:17:00 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:53639 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751754Ab3FZVQ6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:16:58 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,946,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="336023499" Message-ID: <1372281416.2720.28.camel@envy.home> Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] pci: Add CircuitCo VENDOR ID and MinnowBoard DEVICE ID From: Darren Hart To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter P Waskiewicz Jr , Andy Shevchenko , danders@circuitco.com, vishal.l.verma@intel.com, "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:16:56 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <83879b07cd4ce95f086420d1faa926c1692d63b4.1372211451.git.dvhart@linux.intel.com> <20130626163250.GA29299@google.com> <1372266904.8177.83.camel@envy.home> Organization: Intel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4 (3.6.4-2.fc18) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2463 Lines: 60 On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 13:37 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Darren Hart wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 10:32 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > >> +#define PCI_VENDOR_ID_CIRCUITCO 0x1cc8 > >> + > >> #define PCI_VENDOR_ID_TEKRAM 0x1de1 > >> #define PCI_DEVICE_ID_TEKRAM_DC290 0xdc29 > > > > > > Thanks Bjorn. When I reuse this Subsystem ID and there is more than one > > usage, I should send a patch to pci_ids.h adding it and replace the hex > > value in all drivers with the new define. Is that right? > > Yeah, that's what I was thinking. > > But Peter's comment makes more sense to me now. The spec refers to > that config register as "Subsystem ID," not "Subsystem Device ID," but > I was confused because most existing usage treats it as a device ID. > For example, the field in struct pci_device_id is named "subdevice," > and all the existing #defines in pci_ids.h are of the form > PCI_SUBDEVICE_ID_*. > > Device IDs are pretty specific identifiers, so I was thinking that a > "sub-device ID" would be even more specific. Then it would make no > sense to have a "sub-device ID" that was as generic as "MINNOWBOARD." > But the register is actually *not* a "sub-device ID," and I can see > that using the same Subsystem ID for all the devices on a board might > make sense. > > So I think the name PCI_DEVICE_ID_CIRCUITCO_MINNOWBOARD is a bit of a > misnomer, and something like PCI_SUBSYSTEM_CIRCUITCO_MINNOWBOARD would > make it more clear that it really isn't sharing the device ID space > assigned to CircuitCo. It would make perfect sense to have a Device > ID, e.g., "PCI_DEVICE_ID_CIRCUIT_CO_xxx 0x0001," that has nothing to > do with the Subsystem ID 0x0001. > > If you want to do something like that (or even keep your original > patch), I can put that in my -next branch. Just let me know. > > Bjorn I would be happy to change DEVICE to SUBSYSTEM in the the pci_ids.h: +#define PCI_VENDOR_ID_CIRCUITCO 0x1cc8 +#define PCI_SUBSYSTEM_ID_CITCUITCO_MINNOWBOARD 0x0001 Would you like me to send another patch? -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Technical Lead - Linux Kernel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/