On 18.07.23 05:32, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 09:11:10AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> On 7/12/23 19:37, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Changes since 20230712: >> >> on ppc64: >> >> In file included from ../include/linux/device.h:15, >> from ../arch/powerpc/include/asm/io.h:22, >> from ../include/linux/io.h:13, >> from ../include/linux/irq.h:20, >> from ../arch/powerpc/include/asm/hardirq.h:6, >> from ../include/linux/hardirq.h:11, >> from ../include/linux/interrupt.h:11, >> from ../drivers/video/fbdev/ps3fb.c:25: >> ../drivers/video/fbdev/ps3fb.c: In function 'ps3fb_probe': >> ../drivers/video/fbdev/ps3fb.c:1172:40: error: 'struct fb_info' has no member named 'dev' >> 1172 | dev_driver_string(info->dev), dev_name(info->dev), >> | ^~ >> ../include/linux/dev_printk.h:110:37: note: in definition of macro 'dev_printk_index_wrap' >> 110 | _p_func(dev, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~ >> ../drivers/video/fbdev/ps3fb.c:1171:9: note: in expansion of macro 'dev_info' >> 1171 | dev_info(info->device, "%s %s, using %u KiB of video memory\n", >> | ^~~~~~~~ >> ../drivers/video/fbdev/ps3fb.c:1172:61: error: 'struct fb_info' has no member named 'dev' >> 1172 | dev_driver_string(info->dev), dev_name(info->dev), >> | ^~ >> ../include/linux/dev_printk.h:110:37: note: in definition of macro 'dev_printk_index_wrap' >> 110 | _p_func(dev, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__); \ >> | ^~~~~~~~~~~ >> ../drivers/video/fbdev/ps3fb.c:1171:9: note: in expansion of macro 'dev_info' >> 1171 | dev_info(info->device, "%s %s, using %u KiB of video memory\n", >> | ^~~~~~~~ > > Hmm, there is no response from Thomas yet. I guess we should go with > reverting bdb616479eff419, right? I'm missing something here: * What makes you think this is caused by bdb616479eff419? I didn't see anything in the thread that claims this, but I might be missing something * related: if I understand Randy right, this is only happening in -next; so why is bdb616479eff419 the culprit, which is also in mainline since End of June? And asking for a revert already is a bit jumping the gun; sure, it would be good to get this fixed, but remember: developers have a lot on their plate and thus sometimes are forced to set priorities; they also sometimes go on vacation or are afk for other reasons; and sometimes they just miss a mail or two. These are just a few reasons why there might be good reasons why Thomas didn't look into this yet, hence please first ask really kindly before asking for a revert. Ciao, Thorsten
