On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Emil Velikov <[email protected]> wrote: > On 30 May 2017 at 22:59, Li, Samuel <[email protected]> wrote: >>> - Marketing can make mistakes or have IT glitches The inconsistent use of >>> "(TM)" and using a 67C2:00 is something one wants to double-check with them. >> Marketing names are there for a lot of reasons. The code here is to pass the >> names only. >> If you are interested in a vendor's marketing names, please reach out to the >> vendor, e.g. through your contacts in the vendor who also shares your >> interest. >> > True, yet orthogonal to what I'm saying. As people point potential > mistakes you (perhaps not personally) want to check if those are > genuine or not. > If things are correct, say 67C2:00 is valid, simply mention "yes A/B > is bit unusual, yet it's the correct name". > >>>- Having a separate file so that clients can update/edit it does not help >>>much. >> Please say it to pci.ids/usb.ids :) >> > Those files have many more users than the amdgpu.ids, have existed for > ~20 years. Since you refer to pci.ids - why not reuse it but grow a > local copy instead?
The problem with pci.ids is that it doesn't take into account pci revisions so it would be comparable work either way. Alex > >>> Adding ~200 loc for ~170 devices entries sounds like a step in the wrong >>> direction. >> Check the vendor's entries in pci.ids, and you might have some better idea. >> > The file lists ~2.8k entries for 1002 ATI/AMD, yet those include north > bridges and others which are not applicable here. > I'm afraid your argument is too subtle. > > As they say "Not my circus not my moneys" (don't take this the wrong way). > > Regards, > Emil > P.S. Please convince your email client to quote properly? _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
