Re: [PATCH pci] PCI: remove the PCI_VENDOR_ID_NXP alias

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sun, Dec 03, 2023 at 07:48:41PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2023 at 06:30:13PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 03, 2023 at 05:16:54PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:10:19AM +0000, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > > Why would we remove name of the current company and use the name of a
> > > > > company that doesn't exist any more?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, this seems very odd.  What is the reason for any of this other than
> > > > marketing?  Kernel code doesn't do marketing :)
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure who is doing the marketing; not me, that's for sure.
> > > The patch that I'm proposing undoes these strange aliases.
> > 
> > Why?
> 
> Why am I undoing the aliases? It's in my commit message.

Which is long gone from this email thread, sorry.

> NXP now
> produces PCI devices with a different vendor ID.

"Different" from what, the old one?

> If aliasing is the way
> to go, then are we supposed to add a new PCI_VENDOR_ID_NXP2,
> PCI_VENDOR_ID_NXP3 etc?
> 
> Mellanox was bought by Nvidia and I don't see its PCI ID aliased to
> Nvidia. There are probably countless of other examples.

I'm not asking why anything is being aliased, I'm asking why change the
existing names.

> > Who did it originally in what commit id and what was wrong with them
> > then?
> 
> Does it really matter? "Git blame" on the line with #define PCI_VENDOR_ID_NXP
> will point to a random commit by Wasim Khan (also CCed). The usage of
> PCI_VENDOR_ID_NXP is not widespread, it's only that commit.

So does your change here just revert the change in that commit, or does
it do it in other places?

thanks,

greg k-h