Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:16:14 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Philip Paeps <philip@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Updating PCI vendors database Message-ID: <9AFA2D0E-60E2-49DA-A1B3-029A67D36674@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20110404160115.GS71940@rincewind.paeps.cx> References: <20110404141016.GL71940@rincewind.paeps.cx> <4D99D81A.7000903@FreeBSD.org> <20110404145748.GP71940@rincewind.paeps.cx> <BANLkTin-6CiLwKOygckjo20%2BpYMMNFeWbg@mail.gmail.com> <20110404160115.GS71940@rincewind.paeps.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 4, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Philip Paeps wrote: >>> I think we should just go with the new list, but I'll hold off for a bit >>> to let others object. ;) >> >> +1, just for the fact that our sources are becoming stale. I wonder though >> what other OSes like NetBSD/OpenBSD/[Open]Solaris/IlluminOS use however for >> tracking PCI IDs, as the sources for pci.ids aren't necessarily the vendor >> itself and in some cases are end-users. I thought some of our other sources >> were based on data provided by vendors. > > A comment from jfv@ in the thread from a few months ago, suggests that at > least Intel contributes directly to the pci.ids list. One measurement isn't > a valid statistic though. Since the old list appears to have disappeared, I'd go with the new one. There were patches floating about even. The new list had worse coverage than the old one for some old PCI gear, so I suggested using the new one in preference to the old one and if there were good entries in the old one to try to merge those into the new one over time and wean us from the old one. If the old one is gone, the path forward is clear. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9AFA2D0E-60E2-49DA-A1B3-029A67D36674>