From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heiner Kallweit Subject: Re: [PATCH] r8169: Add new device ID support Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:44:10 +0200 Message-ID: <574ea4d9-6095-ecd9-e12b-e5801fdcf343@gmail.com> References: <1540345607-110155-1-git-send-email-shawn.lin@rock-chips.com> <20181024.142234.2286757776208469261.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: nic_swsd@realtek.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller , shawn.lin@rock-chips.com Return-path: Received: from mail-wr1-f66.google.com ([209.85.221.66]:34859 "EHLO mail-wr1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727302AbeJYGOC (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 02:14:02 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f66.google.com with SMTP id w5-v6so7142157wrt.2 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 14:44:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20181024.142234.2286757776208469261.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 24.10.2018 23:22, David Miller wrote: > From: Shawn Lin > Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:46:47 +0800 > >> It's found my r8169 ethernet card at hand has a device ID >> of 0x0000 which wasn't on the list of rtl8169_pci_tbl. Add >> a new entry to make it work: >> >> [2.165785] r8169 Gigabit Ethernet driver 2.3LK-NAPI loaded >> [2.165863] r8169 0000:01:00.0: enabling device (0000 -> 0003) >> [2.167110] r8169 0000:01:00.0 eth0: RTL8168c/8111c at 0xffffff80089be000, >> 00:e0:4c:21:00:17, XID 1c4000c0 IRQ 208 >> [2.167128] r8169 0000:01:00.0 eth0: jumbo features [frames: 6128 >> bytes, tx checksumming: ko] >> >> [root@rk1808:/]# lspci >> 00:00.0 Class 0604: 1d87:1808 >> 01:00.0 Class 0200: 10ec:0000 >> >> Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin > > I'm stil not terribly confident in this change, a device ID of zero is > really unusual. > > Heiner, what do you think? > A PCI device ID of zero definitely is a mistake of the card vendor. Or maybe the card was just a sample and not meant to retail? If some vendor of cards with a different Realtek network chip makes the same mistake, then we're in trouble. I don't think we should accept this risk just to support a broken ancient card. This card most likely is at least 10 years old, and that we get the first report only now seems to indicate that it's not something affecting a lot of people. The reporter found a way to make the card work on his system, so I don't see a need for any further action.