Quoting Geert Uytterhoeven (2021-12-08 10:30:53)
> Use the dev_err_probe() helper, instead of open-coding the same
> operation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_drv.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_drv.c
> index 5612a9e7a9056cf7..86eeda769e2ebd10 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/rcar-du/rcar_du_drv.c
> @@ -661,9 +661,8 @@ static int rcar_du_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> /* DRM/KMS objects */
> ret = rcar_du_modeset_init(rcdu);
> if (ret < 0) {
> - if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> - dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> - "failed to initialize DRM/KMS (%d)\n", ret);
> + dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret,
> + "failed to initialize DRM/KMS\n");
I've just learned that dev_err_probe() sets a 'reason' for the deferral.
Seems like a nice feature when exploring devices that are still waiting
to probe. Is the message still appropriate enough in that case?
I think it's probably fine, so
Reviewed-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> goto error;
> }
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>
