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. ;) >>=20 >> +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. >=20 > 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>