linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] staging: fbtft: use dev_of

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2026011233-little-gratified-1079@gregkh>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 07:48:47 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Chintan Patel <chintanlike@...il.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, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] staging: fbtft: use dev_of_fbinfo() instead of
 info->dev

On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 05:07:39PM -0800, Chintan Patel wrote:
> This fixes commit
> a06d03f9f238 ("staging: fbtft: Make FB_DEVICE dependency optional")
> 
> from my previous v4 series:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/dri-devel/cover/20260107044258.528624-1-chintanlike@gmail.com/
> 
> All direct accesses to info->dev or fb_info->dev are replaced with
> dev_of_fbinfo() helper, improving readability and ensuring 
> compilation succeeds when CONFIG_FB_DEVICE=n.
> 
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202601110740.Y9XK5HtN-lkp@intel.com
> Signed-off-by: Chintan Patel <chintanlike@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c | 9 ++++++---
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
> index 8a5ccc8ae0a1..309e81d7d208 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
> @@ -364,8 +364,9 @@ static int fbtft_fb_setcolreg(unsigned int regno, unsigned int red,
>  {
>  	unsigned int val;
>  	int ret = 1;
> +	struct device *dev = dev_of_fbinfo(info);
>  
> -	dev_dbg(info->dev,
> +	dev_dbg(dev,
>  		"%s(regno=%u, red=0x%X, green=0x%X, blue=0x%X, trans=0x%X)\n",
>  		__func__, regno, red, green, blue, transp);
>  
> @@ -389,9 +390,10 @@ static int fbtft_fb_setcolreg(unsigned int regno, unsigned int red,
>  static int fbtft_fb_blank(int blank, struct fb_info *info)
>  {
>  	struct fbtft_par *par = info->par;
> +	struct device *dev = dev_of_fbinfo(info);
>  	int ret = -EINVAL;
>  
> -	dev_dbg(info->dev, "%s(blank=%d)\n",
> +	dev_dbg(dev, "%s(blank=%d)\n",
>  		__func__, blank);
>  
>  	if (!par->fbtftops.blank)
> @@ -739,6 +741,7 @@ int fbtft_register_framebuffer(struct fb_info *fb_info)
>  	char text2[50] = "";
>  	struct fbtft_par *par = fb_info->par;
>  	struct spi_device *spi = par->spi;
> +	struct device *dev = dev_of_fbinfo(fb_info);
>  
>  	/* sanity checks */
>  	if (!par->fbtftops.init_display) {
> @@ -793,7 +796,7 @@ int fbtft_register_framebuffer(struct fb_info *fb_info)
>  	if (spi)
>  		sprintf(text2, ", spi%d.%d at %d MHz", spi->controller->bus_num,
>  			spi_get_chipselect(spi, 0), spi->max_speed_hz / 1000000);
> -	dev_info(fb_info->dev,
> +	dev_info(dev,
>  		 "%s frame buffer, %dx%d, %d KiB video memory%s, fps=%lu%s\n",
>  		 fb_info->fix.id, fb_info->var.xres, fb_info->var.yres,
>  		 fb_info->fix.smem_len >> 10, text1,
> -- 
> 2.43.0
> 

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you
  did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version.
  Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
  kernel file, Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for what
  needs to be done here to properly describe this.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot