On 8/20/25 4:51 AM, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
On Wed Aug 20, 2025 at 5:08 AM CEST, John Hubbard wrote:Allow callers to write Class::STORAGE_SCSI instead of bindings::PCI_CLASS_STORAGE_SCSI, for example. New APIs: Class::STORAGE_SCSI, Class::NETWORK_ETHERNET, etc. Class::as_raw() Class: TryFrom<u32> for Class ClassMask: Full, ClassSubclass DeviceId::from_class_and_vendor() Device::pci_class() Cc: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> + /// Returns the PCI class as a `Class` struct. + /// Returns an error if the class code is not recognized. + pub fn pci_class(&self) -> Result<Class> { + // SAFETY: `self.as_raw` is a valid pointer to a `struct pci_dev`. + Class::new(unsafe { (*self.as_raw()).class }) + }I think all this turned out very nice! One thing to reconsider would be whether we really want this to be fallible. It's probably better to define a pci::Class::UNKNOWN and implement impl From<u32> for Class { fn from(value: u32) -> Self { match value { $(x if x == Self::$variant.0 => Self::$variant,)+ _ => Self::UNKNOWN, } } } instead.
Yes, I went back and forth on whether Class and Vendor should be fallible, and finally settled on the wrong choice. haha :) thanks, -- John Hubbard
