Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 16:51:59 +0200 From: Philip Paeps <philip@freebsd.org> To: Garrett Cooper <gcooper@FreeBSD.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Updating PCI vendors database Message-ID: <20110404145159.GO71940@rincewind.paeps.cx> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimSJZ_qye_9q_%2Bpp6VGr1kQWLX9tg@mail.gmail.com> References: <20110404141016.GL71940@rincewind.paeps.cx> <20110404141944.GN71940@rincewind.paeps.cx> <BANLkTimSJZ_qye_9q_%2Bpp6VGr1kQWLX9tg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2011-04-04 07:31:53 (-0700), Garrett Cooper <gcooper@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Philip Paeps <philip@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 2011-04-04 16:10:16 (+0200), Philip Paeps <philip@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> Would anyone object if I updated this list to source the same database used > >> by Linux distributions at http://pciids.sourceforge.net/v2.2/pci.ids? > > > > It occurs to me that people would want to verify that this list does actually > > work and that we gain (rather than lose) coverage from it. > > > > A sanity test I've run on a couple of machines: > > > > % fetch http://pciids.sourceforge.net/v2.2/pci.ids > > % pciconf -lv > /tmp/pciconflv.old > > % PCICONF_VENDOR_DATABASE=pci.ids pciconf -lv >/tmp/pciconflv.new > > % diff -u /tmp/pciconflv.old /tmp/pciconflv.new > > > > In all cases I've seen so far, the new list yields better (more correct and up > > to date) results than the exising list. In no cases has pciconf complained > > about the new list. > > I've copy-pasted the discussion I brought this up to Warner/Brooks > several months ago for review. I think at that point, the lists we're currently sourcing still existed. As of this morning, I don't seem to be able to find Craig Hart's list of PCI IDs anywhere on the net. It's certainly no long available at the address listed in the source tree. > The big problem is that the descriptions with the previous source and the > new source clash, so this would cause a huge amount of diff churn; This would be a problem I agree, but not a huge one. If the churn would be too large, I would be hesitant to push this to any stable branches. But I don't think the churn should be a problem for HEAD. It doesn't look to me like the churn is too large on the machines I've used it on. Generally, the changes I've seen is devices which lacked a device description now have one, and devices which had a wrong or incomplete description now have a complete and (as far as I can tell) correct one. This feels like an improvement to me. :) > plus I think there are a few entries missing from each area (at least there > were the last time I looked -- maybe our pci_vendors is more spartan than > the new source is today). The new list is much more complete than the list we have currently. For one thing, it also includes subvendors and subdevices, which the current list lacks. Our pciconf doesn't care about those currently, but could be made to care. I also don't think we should underestimate the value of sharing a list with Linux (especially if the licence on the list is friendly to sharing it) and potentially other operating system vendors. - Philip -- Philip Paeps Please don't Cc me, I am philip@freebsd.org subscribed to the list.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110404145159.GO71940>