On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 10:48:53AM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote:
> > On 25 Feb 2025, at 4:17 PM, andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 10:36:03AM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote:
> >>>> On 25 Feb 2025, at 4:03 PM, andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 10:09:42AM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote:
...
> >>>> +static int appletbdrm_probe(struct usb_interface *intf,
> >>>> + const struct usb_device_id *id)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct usb_endpoint_descriptor *bulk_in, *bulk_out;
> >>>> + struct device *dev = &intf->dev;
> >>>> + struct appletbdrm_device *adev;
> >>>> + struct drm_device *drm;
> >>>> + int ret;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + ret = usb_find_common_endpoints(intf->cur_altsetting, &bulk_in, &bulk_out, NULL, NULL);
> >>>> + if (ret) {
> >>>> + drm_err(drm, "Failed to find bulk endpoints\n");
> >>>
> >>> This is simply wrong (and in this case even lead to crash in some circumstances).
> >>> drm_err() may not be used here. That's my point in previous discussions.
> >>> Independently on the subsystem the ->probe() for the sake of consistency and
> >>> being informative should only rely on struct device *dev,
> >>
> >> I'm not sure how drm_err works,
> >
> > It's a macro.
> >
> >> but struct drm_device does have a struct device *dev as well.
> >
> > Yes, but only when it's initialized.
> >
> >> Anyways, this is something I'll leave for Thomas to reply.
> >
> > The code above is wrong independently on his reply :-)
>
> I'm kinda stuck between contrasting views of 2 kernel maintainers lol,
> so I said let Thomas reply.
Sure. I also want him to clarify my question about potential drm_err_probe().
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
