On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 08:59:09PM -0800, Chintan Patel wrote:
> Replace direct accesses to info->dev with fb_dbg() and fb_info()
> helpers to avoid build failures when CONFIG_FB_DEVICE=n.
Why is there a fb_* specific logging helper? dev_info() and dev_dbg()
should be used instead.
> Fixes: a06d03f9f238 ("staging: fbtft: Make FB_DEVICE dependency optional")
Is this really a bug?
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
> Closes:
> https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/[email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Chintan Patel <[email protected]>
>
> Changes in v6:
> - Switch debug/info logging to fb_dbg() and fb_info()(suggested by Thomas
> Zimmermann)
> - Drop dev_of_fbinfo() usage in favor of framebuffer helpers that implicitly
> handle the debug/info context.
> - Drop __func__ usage per review feedback(suggested by greg k-h)
> - Add Fixes tag for a06d03f9f238 ("staging: fbtft: Make FB_DEVICE dependency
> optional")
> (suggested by Andy Shevchenko)
>
> Changes in v5:
> - Initial attempt to replace info->dev accesses using
> dev_of_fbinfo() helper
> ---
The changelog stuff goes below the --- line.
> drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c | 19 +++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
> b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
> index 8a5ccc8ae0a1..1b3b62950205 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/fbtft/fbtft-core.c
> @@ -365,9 +365,9 @@ static int fbtft_fb_setcolreg(unsigned int regno,
> unsigned int red,
> unsigned int val;
> int ret = 1;
>
> - dev_dbg(info->dev,
> - "%s(regno=%u, red=0x%X, green=0x%X, blue=0x%X, trans=0x%X)\n",
> - __func__, regno, red, green, blue, transp);
> + fb_dbg(info,
> + "regno=%u, red=0x%X, green=0x%X, blue=0x%X, trans=0x%X\n",
> + regno, red, green, blue, transp);
I dont understand what is wrong with the existing dev_dbg() line (with
the exception that __func__ should not be in it.
>
> switch (info->fix.visual) {
> case FB_VISUAL_TRUECOLOR:
> @@ -391,8 +391,7 @@ static int fbtft_fb_blank(int blank, struct fb_info *info)
> struct fbtft_par *par = info->par;
> int ret = -EINVAL;
>
> - dev_dbg(info->dev, "%s(blank=%d)\n",
> - __func__, blank);
> + fb_dbg(info, "blank=%d\n", blank);
Same here, what's wrong with dev_dbg()?
>
> if (!par->fbtftops.blank)
> return ret;
> @@ -793,11 +792,11 @@ 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,
> - "%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,
> - HZ / fb_info->fbdefio->delay, text2);
> + fb_info(fb_info,
> + "%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,
> + HZ / fb_info->fbdefio->delay, text2);
When drivers work properly, they are quiet. Why is this needed at all
except as a debug message?
thanks,
greg k-h
