Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757169Ab3GEVeJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jul 2013 17:34:09 -0400 Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([94.23.35.102]:51934 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752274Ab3GEVeH (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jul 2013 17:34:07 -0400 Message-ID: <51D73BCD.1030401@free-electrons.com> Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 23:34:05 +0200 From: Michael Opdenacker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Why no USB id list in the kernel sources? X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2627 Lines: 73 Hi, I'm wondering why there is no include/linux/usb_ids.h (or include/linux/usb/ids.h) file in the same way there is a include/linux/pci_ids.h for PCI. I don't expect all product ids to be listed (the http://www.linux-usb.org/usb.ids list is pretty big), but if we could have at least vendor ids, it would make device tables cleaner and easier to read, as we have in most PCI drivers. Here would be an example: diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/gspca/pac207.c b/drivers/media/usb/gspca/pac207.c index 83519be..ce8c975 100644 --- a/drivers/media/usb/gspca/pac207.c +++ b/drivers/media/usb/gspca/pac207.c @@ -449,19 +449,19 @@ static const struct sd_desc sd_desc = { /* -- module initialisation -- */ static const struct usb_device_id device_table[] = { - {USB_DEVICE(0x041e, 0x4028)}, - {USB_DEVICE(0x093a, 0x2460)}, - {USB_DEVICE(0x093a, 0x2461)}, - {USB_DEVICE(0x093a, 0x2463)}, - {USB_DEVICE(0x093a, 0x2464)}, - {USB_DEVICE(0x093a, 0x2468)}, - {USB_DEVICE(0x093a, 0x2470)}, - {USB_DEVICE(0x093a, 0x2471)}, - {USB_DEVICE(0x093a, 0x2472)}, - {USB_DEVICE(0x093a, 0x2474)}, - {USB_DEVICE(0x093a, 0x2476)}, - {USB_DEVICE(0x145f, 0x013a)}, - {USB_DEVICE(0x2001, 0xf115)}, + {USB_DEVICE(USB_VENDOR_ID_CREATIVE, 0x4028)}, + {USB_DEVICE(USB_VENDOR_ID_PIXART, 0x2460)}, + {USB_DEVICE(USB_VENDOR_ID_PIXART, 0x2461)}, + {USB_DEVICE(USB_VENDOR_ID_PIXART, 0x2463)}, + {USB_DEVICE(USB_VENDOR_ID_PIXART, 0x2464)}, + {USB_DEVICE(USB_VENDOR_ID_PIXART, 0x2468)}, + {USB_DEVICE(USB_VENDOR_ID_PIXART, 0x2470)}, + {USB_DEVICE(USB_VENDOR_ID_PIXART, 0x2471)}, + {USB_DEVICE(USB_VENDOR_ID_PIXART, 0x2472)}, + {USB_DEVICE(USB_VENDOR_ID_PIXART, 0x2474)}, + {USB_DEVICE(USB_VENDOR_ID_PIXART, 0x2476)}, + {USB_DEVICE(USB_VENDOR_ID_TRUST, 0x013a)}, + {USB_DEVICE(USB_VENDOR_ID_DLINK, 0xf115)}, {} }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(usb, device_table); Does this happen because nobody had the time to create and maintain such a usb_ids.h file, or would there be any other reasons? I'm asking because I don't like raw values in situations when a symbolic name would be more self-explanatory ;) Thanks, Cheers, Michael. -- Michael Opdenacker, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com +33 484 258 098 -- 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/