> On 25 Feb 2025, at 4:17 PM, andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 10:36:03AM +0000, Aditya Garg wrote:
>>>> On 25 Feb 2025, at 4:03 PM, andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com 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.
Looks like I initialised it after this error statement. Yeah, it an error on my
part. Will wait for more reviews till tomorrow though.
>
>> Anyways, this is something I'll leave for Thomas to reply.
>
> The code above is wrong independently on his reply :-)
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>
