[PATCH] rust: drm: fix incorrect type name in `Device` doc comment

[PATCH] rust: drm: fix incorrect type name in `Device` doc comment

[Hsiu Che Yu]

The invariant documentation incorrectly referenced `struct device`
instead of `struct drm_device`. Fix it.

Fixes: 1e4b8896c0f3c ("rust: drm: add device abstraction")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Hsiu Che Yu <yu.whisper.personal@gmail.com>
---
 rust/kernel/drm/device.rs | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/rust/kernel/drm/device.rs b/rust/kernel/drm/device.rs
index adbafe8db54d..301c9f7859e2 100644
--- a/rust/kernel/drm/device.rs
+++ b/rust/kernel/drm/device.rs
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ macro_rules! drm_legacy_fields {
 ///
 /// # Invariants
 ///
-/// `self.dev` is a valid instance of a `struct device`.
+/// `self.dev` is a valid instance of a `struct drm_device`.
 #[repr(C)]
 pub struct Device<T: drm::Driver> {
     dev: Opaque<bindings::drm_device>,
@@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ pub(crate) fn as_raw(&self) -> *mut bindings::drm_device {
 
     /// # Safety
     ///
-    /// `ptr` must be a valid pointer to a `struct device` embedded in `Self`.
+    /// `ptr` must be a valid pointer to a `struct drm_device` embedded in `Self`.
     unsafe fn from_drm_device(ptr: *const bindings::drm_device) -> *mut Self {
         // SAFETY: By the safety requirements of this function `ptr` is a valid pointer to a
         // `struct drm_device` embedded in `Self`.
@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ unsafe fn into_drm_device(ptr: NonNull<Self>) -> *mut bindings::drm_device {
     /// to can't drop to zero, for the duration of this function call and the entire duration when
     /// the returned reference exists.
     ///
-    /// Additionally, callers must ensure that the `struct device`, `ptr` is pointing to, is
+    /// Additionally, callers must ensure that the `struct drm_device`, `ptr` is pointing to, is
     /// embedded in `Self`.
     #[doc(hidden)]
     pub unsafe fn from_raw<'a>(ptr: *const bindings::drm_device) -> &'a Self {

---
base-commit: b4e07588e743c989499ca24d49e752c074924a9a
change-id: 20260429-fix-drm-device-comment-41859883dcfb

Best regards,
--  
Hsiu Che Yu <yu.whisper.personal@gmail.com>

Re: [PATCH] rust: drm: fix incorrect type name in `Device` doc comment

[Alice Ryhl]

On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 01:08:14PM +0800, Hsiu Che Yu wrote:
> The invariant documentation incorrectly referenced `struct device`
> instead of `struct drm_device`. Fix it.
> 
> Fixes: 1e4b8896c0f3c ("rust: drm: add device abstraction")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Hsiu Che Yu <yu.whisper.personal@gmail.com>

LGTM
Reviewed-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>

Claude review: Re: [PATCH] rust: drm: fix incorrect type name in `Device` doc comment

[Claude Code Review Bot]

Overall Series Review

Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: drm: fix incorrect type name in `Device` doc comment
Author: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>
Patches: 2
Reviewed: 2026-05-05T11:51:05.636703

---

This is a single-patch documentation fix that corrects three instances where `struct device` was incorrectly written in doc comments instead of `struct drm_device` in `rust/kernel/drm/device.rs`. The fix is trivially correct and clearly beneficial.

**Verdict: Looks good.** The patch is minimal, accurate, and well-targeted. The `Fixes:` tag and `Cc: stable` are appropriate since these are doc comments that describe safety invariants — incorrect safety documentation in Rust `unsafe` code could mislead a developer into providing the wrong pointer type.

---
Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer

Claude review: Re: [PATCH] rust: drm: fix incorrect type name in `Device` doc comment

[Claude Code Review Bot]

Patch Review

**All three hunks are correct.**

**Hunk 1 — Invariant comment (line 75 in tree):**
```
-/// `self.dev` is a valid instance of a `struct device`.
+/// `self.dev` is a valid instance of a `struct drm_device`.
```
The `dev` field is declared as `Opaque<bindings::drm_device>`, so `struct drm_device` is the correct type. This is the struct-level invariant, so accuracy matters for anyone relying on it when writing `unsafe` code.

**Hunk 2 — Safety doc on `from_drm_device` (line 163 in tree):**
```
-    /// `ptr` must be a valid pointer to a `struct device` embedded in `Self`.
+    /// `ptr` must be a valid pointer to a `struct drm_device` embedded in `Self`.
```
The function signature takes `*const bindings::drm_device`, and the internal `// SAFETY:` comment on line 166 already correctly says `struct drm_device`. The doc comment was the only inconsistent part.

**Hunk 3 — Safety doc on `from_raw` (line 187 in tree):**
```
-    /// Additionally, callers must ensure that the `struct device`, `ptr` is pointing to, is
+    /// Additionally, callers must ensure that the `struct drm_device`, `ptr` is pointing to, is
```
Same situation — `ptr` is `*const bindings::drm_device`, and the function delegates to `from_drm_device`. The doc comment was the sole inconsistency.

**No issues found.** The patch is correct, complete (all three erroneous instances are fixed), and the commit message is clear. The `Fixes:` tag correctly references the commit that introduced the abstraction (and these comments).

---
Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer