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

[Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>]

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

> 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. Everywhere
else in the kernel, 0x1957 is referred to as PCI_VENDOR_ID_FREESCALE.
I can't comment on what was wrong with Wasim.