From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.11-rc4-netdev1 5/5] r8169: literate PCI ID Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:31:00 -0500 Message-ID: <421BDCD4.3050705@pobox.com> References: <20050221235125.GD26248@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20050221235301.GA31723@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20050221235450.GB31723@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20050221235611.GC31723@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20050221235718.GD31723@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20050221235834.GE31723@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, jdmason@us.ibm.com To: Francois Romieu In-Reply-To: <20050221235834.GE31723@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Francois Romieu wrote: > De-obfuscate supported PCI ID > > Non-hackers happen to read the sources too. > > Signed-off-by: Francois Romieu > > diff -puN drivers/net/r8169.c~r8169-440 drivers/net/r8169.c > --- a/drivers/net/r8169.c~r8169-440 2005-02-21 23:42:21.193570455 +0100 > +++ b/drivers/net/r8169.c 2005-02-21 23:42:21.200569312 +0100 > @@ -174,8 +174,10 @@ const static struct { > #undef _R > > static struct pci_device_id rtl8169_pci_tbl[] = { > - {0x10ec, 0x8169, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, 0}, > - {0x1186, 0x4300, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, 0}, > + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_REALTEK, PCI_DEVICE_ID_REALTEK_8169, > + PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, 0UL }, > + { PCI_VENDOR_ID_DLINK, PCI_DEVICE_ID_DLINK_DGE528T, > + PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, 0UL }, Although I leave it up to you as maintainer, I encourage use of PCI_VENDOR_ID_xxx and discourage use of PCI_DEVICE_ID_xxx. Defining constants for each PCI device (a) endlessly patches pci_ids.h for little value, and (b) means that updates to a single driver are no longer self-contained. For people pulling driver updates into distro kernels particularly, pci_ids PCI_DEVICE_ID_xxx constants are a pain. I'm apply patches 1-4 to netdev right now -- please tell me if I should apply patch #5 as-is, given my comments here. Jeff