On 8/29/25 11:38 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
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...?
Yes, I think the example above should be on the vendor_id() method rather than
on the Vendor struct and should be introduced by this patch.
