On Thu Jul 31, 2025 at 8:54 PM CEST, Benno Lossin wrote:
> On Thu Jul 31, 2025 at 5:48 PM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> The #[pin_data] and #[pin] annotations are not necessary for
>> drm::Device, since we don't use any pin-init macros, but only
>> __pinned_init() on the impl PinInit<T::Data, Error> argument of
>> drm::Device::new().
>
> But you're still pinning `Device`, right?
A drm::Device instance never exists other than as ARef<drm::Device>.
>> Fixes: 1e4b8896c0f3 ("rust: drm: add device abstraction")
>> Signed-off-by: Danilo Krummrich <d...@kernel.org>
>> ---
>> rust/kernel/drm/device.rs | 2 --
>> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/rust/kernel/drm/device.rs b/rust/kernel/drm/device.rs
>> index d19410deaf6c..d0a9528121f1 100644
>> --- a/rust/kernel/drm/device.rs
>> +++ b/rust/kernel/drm/device.rs
>> @@ -54,10 +54,8 @@ macro_rules! drm_legacy_fields {
>> ///
>> /// `self.dev` is a valid instance of a `struct device`.
>> #[repr(C)]
>> -#[pin_data]
>> pub struct Device<T: drm::Driver> {
>> dev: Opaque<bindings::drm_device>,
>> - #[pin]
>> data: T::Data,
>
> Looking at this code again, I also noticed that it was wrong before this
> patch: `Device<T>` implemented `Unpin` if `T::Data` did which is most
> likely wrong (or is `drm_device` not address sensitive?).
It is, but as mentioned above a drm::Device only ever exists as
ARef<drm::Device>.
So, in drm::Device::new() we allocate the drm::Device with __drm_dev_alloc(),
initialize data in-place within this allocated memory and create an
ARef<drm::Device> directly from the raw pointer returned by __drm_dev_alloc().
> So good to see that fixed, thanks!
>
> ---
> Cheers,
> Benno
>
>> }
>>
