linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers/serial/8250_pci.c (add support for '8-port RS-232 MIC-3620 from advantech'

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <49783679.8010005@wincor-nixdorf.com>
Date:	Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:03:53 +0100
From:	Niels de Vos <niels.devos@...cor-nixdorf.com>
To:	Tosoni <jp.tosoni@...sys.fr>
CC:	'Michael Bramer' <michael@...support.de>,
	'Alan Cox' <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	'Paulius Zaleckas' <paulius.zaleckas@...tonika.lt>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/serial/8250_pci.c (add support for '8-port RS-232
 MIC-3620 from advantech'

Tosoni wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:32:15PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
>>>>>>  static struct pci_device_id serial_pci_tbl[] = {
>>>>>> +       {       PCI_VENDOR_ID_ADVANTECH,
>> PCI_DEVICE_ID_ADVANTECH_PCI3620,
>>>>>> +               0x3620, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0,
>>>> Why not use PCI_VENDOR_ID_ADVANTECH as PCI_SUBVENDOR_ID too?
>>> The Advantech vendor id is not 0x3620. This confused me as
>> well which is
>>> why I asked for an lspci. Advantech has stuck the device id in the
>>> subvendor bits and '1' in the subdevice (so it should be 1 not
>>> PCI_ANY_ID).
>> is this better?
>>
>> +       {       PCI_VENDOR_ID_ADVANTECH,
>> PCI_DEVICE_ID_ADVANTECH_PCI3620,
>> +               PCI_DEVICE_ID_ADVANTECH_PCI3620, 1, 0, 0,
> 
> Since the name describes a device id where it should be a (sub)vendor id,
> I would suggest that you add a line of comment to explain the case.
> So that no one will be tempted to change it back to PCI_VENDOR_ID_ADVANTECH
> in the future.

Definitely!

Niels


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)