From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claude Code Review Bot To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com Subject: Claude review: staging: fbtft: Use %pe format specifier for error pointers Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 19:00:42 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260412144552.18493-1-mahad.ibrahim.dev@gmail.com> References: <20260412144552.18493-1-mahad.ibrahim.dev@gmail.com> <20260412144552.18493-1-mahad.ibrahim.dev@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review **fb_ssd1351.c change:** ```c - "cannot register backlight device (%ld)\n", - PTR_ERR(bd)); + "cannot register backlight device (%pe)\n", bd); ``` **fbtft-core.c change:** ```c - "cannot register backlight device (%ld)\n", - PTR_ERR(bd)); + "cannot register backlight device (%pe)\n", bd); ``` Both hunks are correct. In each case `bd` has just been confirmed to be an = error pointer via `IS_ERR(bd)`, so passing it directly with `%pe` is safe a= nd will print the symbolic error name (e.g. `-ENOMEM`) instead of a raw num= ber. **Minor observations (not blocking):** - The commit message is clear and well-structured. The "Testing" note about= compile-only testing is appreciated and appropriate for a printf-format-on= ly change in staging. - The `Fixes:` tag is absent, which is fine =E2=80=94 this is a cosmetic cl= eanup, not a bug fix, so no `Fixes:` tag is needed. However, the commit mes= sage says "Fixes the following coccinelle warnings" which could be slightly= misleading since `Fixes:` has a specific meaning in the kernel. Consider r= ephrasing to "Addresses the following coccinelle warnings" or "Resolves the= following coccinelle warning" to avoid any ambiguity, though this is a ver= y minor nit. **Reviewed-by worthy:** Yes. The patch is trivially correct. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer