Hello,
On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 11:57:21AM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> 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?
It's a very generic message, so it's not ideal. One issue is that
dev_err_probe() replaces any currently stored probe deferral reason
message, which means that we'll override any message previously set. We
don't set any message now, but we should (in rcar_du_encoder_init(),
there are two main code paths where -EPROBE_DEFER is expected), so this
patch would then get in the way I'm afraid.
> I think it's probably fine, so
>
> Reviewed-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > goto error;
> > }
> >
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
