On 17.08.21 14:03, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > 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. Ah, not so easy: __brcmf_err accepts a struct brcmf_bus * as first argument, but there is none I can pass along. As the whole file uses the brcm_ logging functions, I'd just leave this one without a device. > >> >>> 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 |
