Hello, On Mon, 22 Sept 2025 at 18:36, Singh, Aman Deep <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Sept 2025 at 08:35, Vemula Venkatesh > <[email protected]> wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/net/intel/idpf/idpf_common_device.h > b/drivers/net/intel/idpf/idpf_common_device.h > index 5f3e4a4fcf..9d1d7dc47c 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/intel/idpf/idpf_common_device.h > +++ b/drivers/net/intel/idpf/idpf_common_device.h > @@ -44,6 +44,23 @@ > (sizeof(struct virtchnl2_ptype) + \ > (((p)->proto_id_count ? ((p)->proto_id_count - 1) : 0) * > sizeof((p)->proto_id[0]))) > > +/** Macro used to help building up tables of device IDs with PCI class */ > +#define RTE_PCI_CLASS(cls) \ > + .class_id = (cls), \ > + .vendor_id = RTE_PCI_ANY_ID, \ > + .device_id = RTE_PCI_ANY_ID, \ > + .subsystem_vendor_id = RTE_PCI_ANY_ID, \ > + .subsystem_device_id = RTE_PCI_ANY_ID > > Don't define a macro with the RTE_PCI_ namespace in a driver. > > Either this is really specific to IDPF, and this should be renamed > with a prefix reflecting this. > This macro is a huge wildcard on a pci class, which seems very specific. > > Or this makes sense for other drivers and then this macro should be > moved to the pci bus driver header. > > Yes David, it only applies to IDPF. As per PCI document- > > https://members.pcisig.com/document/20113 Table: 1.3
I'll trust you, as I don't have access. > > Is it OK to rename it: IDPF_PCI_CLASS ? Ok for me. Thank you. -- David Marchand
