On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 11:47:18AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

On Mon, 2 Nov 2020 07:20:15 +0000 Hayes Wang wrote:

quoted

Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref]

quoted

Can you describe the use case in more detail?

AFAICT r8152 defines a match for the exact same device.
Does it not mean that which driver is used will be somewhat random
if both are built?  

I export rtl_get_version() from r8152. It would return none zero
value if r8152 could support this device. Both r8152 and r8153_ecm
would check the return value of rtl_get_version() in porbe().
Therefore, if rtl_get_version() return none zero value, the r8152
is used for the device with vendor mode. Otherwise, the r8153_ecm
is used for the device with ECM mode.

Oh, I see, I missed that the rtl_get_version() checking is the inverse
of r8152.

quoted

quoted

quoted

+/* Define these values to match your device */
+#define VENDOR_ID_REALTEK		0x0bda
+#define VENDOR_ID_MICROSOFT		0x045e
+#define VENDOR_ID_SAMSUNG		0x04e8
+#define VENDOR_ID_LENOVO		0x17ef
+#define VENDOR_ID_LINKSYS		0x13b1
+#define VENDOR_ID_NVIDIA		0x0955
+#define VENDOR_ID_TPLINK		0x2357  

$ git grep 0x2357 | grep -i tplink
drivers/net/usb/cdc_ether.c:#define TPLINK_VENDOR_ID	0x2357
drivers/net/usb/r8152.c:#define VENDOR_ID_TPLINK		0x2357
drivers/usb/serial/option.c:#define TPLINK_VENDOR_ID			0x2357

$ git grep 0x17ef | grep -i lenovo
drivers/hid/hid-ids.h:#define USB_VENDOR_ID_LENOVO		0x17ef
drivers/hid/wacom.h:#define USB_VENDOR_ID_LENOVO	0x17ef
drivers/net/usb/cdc_ether.c:#define LENOVO_VENDOR_ID	0x17ef
drivers/net/usb/r8152.c:#define VENDOR_ID_LENOVO		0x17ef

Time to consolidate those vendor id defines perhaps?  

It seems that there is no such header file which I could include
or add the new vendor IDs.

Please create one. (Adding Greg KH to the recipients, in case there is
a reason that USB subsystem doesn't have a common vendor id header.)

There is a reason, it's a nightmare to maintain and handle merges for,
just don't do it.

Read the comments at the top of the pci_ids.h file if you are curious
why we don't even do this for PCI device ids anymore for the past 10+
years.

So no, please do not create such a common file, it is not needed or a
good idea.

thanks,

greg k-h