On 17.08.21 13:54, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 2:11 PM Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 17.08.21 13:02, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021, Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > >>>> err = brcmf_pcie_probe(pdev, NULL); >>>> if (err) >>>> - brcmf_err(bus, "probe after resume failed, err=%d\n", err); >>>> + __brcmf_err(NULL, __func__, "probe after resume failed, >>>> err=%d\n", >>> >>> >>> This is weird looking line now. Why can’t you simply use dev_err() / >>> netdev_err()? >> >> That's what brcmf_err normally expands to, but in this file the macro >> is overridden to add the extra first argument. > > So, then the problem is in macro here. You need another portion of > macro(s) that will use the dev pointer directly. When you have a valid > device, use it. And here it seems the case. Ah, you mean using pdev instead of the stale bus. Ye, I could do that. Thanks for pointing out. > >> The brcmf_ logging function write to brcmf trace buffers. This is not >> done with netdev_err/dev_err (and replacing the existing logging >> is out of scope for a regression fix anyway). > > I see. > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
