Hello yipechai,
The patch d51ce4db0747: "drm/amdgpu: Modify gfx block to fit for the
unified ras block data and ops" from Jan 4, 2022, leads to the
following Smatch static checker warning:
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras.c:1058 amdgpu_ras_error_inject()
warn: inconsistent indenting
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras.c
1047 int amdgpu_ras_error_inject(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
1048 struct ras_inject_if *info)
1049 {
1050 struct ras_manager *obj = amdgpu_ras_find_obj(adev, &info->head);
1051 struct ta_ras_trigger_error_input block_info = {
1052 .block_id = amdgpu_ras_block_to_ta(info->head.block),
1053 .inject_error_type = amdgpu_ras_error_to_ta(info->head.type),
1054 .sub_block_index = info->head.sub_block_index,
1055 .address = info->address,
1056 .value = info->value,
1057 };
--> 1058 int ret = -EINVAL;
1059 struct amdgpu_ras_block_object* block_obj = amdgpu_ras_get_ras_block(adev, info->head.block, info->head.sub_block_index);
Really? You can't be bothered to run checkpatch on your code? AMD drm
code is uniquely bad in this regards. It's the only place outside of
drivers/staging/ where you see stuff like this.
In theory, it's admirable to be this informal and free from bureaucracy
and rules. But in another way, this kind of code is like plumber crack.
You might be a good plumber but it's not attractive. And we might not
point it out, but we all see it.
1060
1061 if (!obj)
1062 return -EINVAL;
1063
1064 if (!block_obj || !block_obj->hw_ops) {
1065 dev_info(adev->dev, "%s doesn't config ras function \n", get_ras_block_str(&info->head));
1066 return -EINVAL;
1067 }
regards,
dan carpenter
