Hello,

On Mon, 22 Sept 2025 at 08:35, Vemula Venkatesh
<venkatesh.vemula@intel.com> 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

Is it OK to rename it: IDPF_PCI_CLASS ?