Re: [PATCH v7 5/6] rust: pci: use pci::Vendor instead of bindings::PCI_VENDOR_ID_*

[John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>]

On 8/28/25 6:59 AM, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On 8/28/25 3:25 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Wed Aug 27, 2025 at 8:12 AM JST, John Hubbard wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> diff --git a/rust/kernel/pci/id.rs b/rust/kernel/pci/id.rs
>>> index 4b0ad8d4edc6..fd7a789e3015 100644
>>> --- a/rust/kernel/pci/id.rs
>>> +++ b/rust/kernel/pci/id.rs
>>> @@ -118,15 +118,14 @@ fn try_from(value: u32) -> Result<Self, Self::Error> {
>>>   /// ```
>>>   /// # use kernel::{device::Core, pci::{self, Vendor}, prelude::*};
>>>   /// fn log_device_info(pdev: &pci::Device<Core>) -> Result<()> {
>>> -///     // Compare raw vendor ID with known vendor constant
>>> -///     let vendor_id = pdev.vendor_id();
>>> -///     if vendor_id == Vendor::NVIDIA.as_raw() {
>>> -///         dev_info!(
>>> -///             pdev.as_ref(),
>>> -///             "Found NVIDIA device: 0x{:x}\n",
>>> -///             pdev.device_id()
>>> -///         );
>>> -///     }
>>> +///     // Get the validated PCI vendor ID
>>> +///     let vendor = pdev.vendor_id();
>>> +///     dev_info!(
>>> +///         pdev.as_ref(),
>>> +///         "Device: Vendor={}, Device=0x{:x}\n",
>>> +///         vendor,
>>> +///         pdev.device_id()
>>> +///     );
>>
>> Why not use this new example starting from patch 2, which introduced the
>> previous code that this patch removes?
> 
> I think that's because in v2 vendor_id() still returns the raw value. I think it

That is correct.

> makes a little more sense if this patch simply introduces the example as an
> example for vendor_id() itself.
> 
> I think struct Vendor does not necessarily need an example by itself.

I'm not quite sure if you are asking for a change to this patch? The
example already exercises .vendor_id(), so...?


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard