On Fri Feb 13, 2026 at 11:00 AM EST, Damien Riégel wrote:
On Fri Feb 13, 2026 at 4:35 AM EST, Jérôme Pouiller wrote:
In any case, I believe we can't publish a driver with VID = 0.
Noted, the patchset can't be applied as is. I'll check what the process is to assign a VID/PID.
I'm still trying to figure out internally how I can get a VID/PID for this driver. We thought we had a valid vendor ID we could use, based on a JEDEC ID that we already have assigned, but upon further investigation I don't think we have the right to derive an SDIO VID from that JEDEC ID, so the whole process might take a bit of time.
In the meantime, may I suggest that we continue the review as if a valid VID/PID was assigned? You can keep your "Reviewed-by" until we actually have valid IDs. If we have to get in touch with external organizations, it might take a few weeks or even months to get sorted, I have no idea how long that process will be.
Alternatively, I could just drop the SDIO VID/PID and just rely on device tree instead? That leaves the question of what the compatible string should be. Rob Herring doesn't want a generic "silabs,greybus" string, it must be a real product and we don't have that yet.
I'd be happy to take any input that helps make progress :)
thanks, damien