[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <081b59e8-e74b-4af6-bd31-00ebb4e12e5c@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2025 10:01:46 -0800
From: Chintan Patel <chintanlike@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, tzimmermann@...e.de, andy@...nel.org,
deller@....de, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] fbdev: omapfb: Make FB_DEVICE dependency optional
On 12/30/25 03:37, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 09:28:21PM -0800, Chintan Patel wrote:
>> omapfb provides several sysfs interfaces for framebuffer configuration
>> and debugging, but these are not required for the core driver.
>>
>> Remove the hard dependency on CONFIG_FB_DEVICE and make sysfs support
>> optional by using dev_of_fbinfo() to obtain the backing device at runtime.
>> When FB_DEVICE is disabled, sysfs operations are skipped while the code
>> still builds and is type-checked.
>
> ...
>
>> + struct device *dev = dev_of_fbinfo(fbdev->fbs[i]);
>
> Still the same issue I pointed out in v2 review.
>
>> int t;
>> +
>> + if (!dev)
>> + continue;
>
> ...
>
>> + struct device *dev = dev_of_fbinfo(fbdev->fbs[i]);
>> +
>> + if (!dev)
>> + continue;
>
> Ditto.
Sorry about that. I had actually made your suggested changes but somehow
I mistakenly send old patches instead of updated one. I will send
updated one. Should I send v4 or v3 is fine?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists