Le 15/12/2022 à 20:46, Christophe JAILLET a écrit :
Le 15/12/2022 à 17:36, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The activity_monitor_external[] array is too big to fit on the
kernel stack, resulting in this warning with clang:
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c:1438:12: error: stack frame size (1040) exceeds limit (1024) in 'smu_v13_0_7_get_power_profile_mode' [-Werror,-Wframe-larger-than]
Use dynamic allocation instead. It should also be possible to
have single element here instead of the array, but this seems
easier.
Fixes: 334682ae8151 ("drm/amd/pm: enable workload type change on
smu_v13_0_7")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c
index c270f94a1b86..7eba854e09ec 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c
@@ -1439,7 +1439,7 @@ static int smu_v13_0_7_get_power_limit(struct
smu_context *smu,
static int smu_v13_0_7_get_power_profile_mode(struct smu_context
*smu, char *buf)
{
- DpmActivityMonitorCoeffIntExternal_t
activity_monitor_external[PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_COUNT];
+ DpmActivityMonitorCoeffIntExternal_t *activity_monitor_external;
uint32_t i, j, size = 0;
int16_t workload_type = 0;
int result = 0;
@@ -1447,6 +1447,12 @@ static int
smu_v13_0_7_get_power_profile_mode(struct smu_context *smu, char *buf
if (!buf)
return -EINVAL;
+ activity_monitor_external =
kcalloc(sizeof(activity_monitor_external),
Hi,
Before, 'activity_monitor_external' was not initialized.
Maybe kcalloc() is enough?
Read kmalloc_array()
sizeof(*activity_monitor_external)?
~~~~
+ PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_COUNT,
+ GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!activity_monitor_external)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
size += sysfs_emit_at(buf, size, " ");
for (i = 0; i <= PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_WINDOW3D; i++)
Unrelated, but wouldn't it be more straightforward with "<
PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_COUNT"?
size += sysfs_emit_at(buf, size, "%-14s%s",
amdgpu_pp_profile_name[i],
@@ -1459,15 +1465,17 @@ static int
smu_v13_0_7_get_power_profile_mode(struct smu_context *smu, char *buf
workload_type = smu_cmn_to_asic_specific_index(smu,
CMN2ASIC_MAPPING_WORKLOAD,
i);
- if (workload_type < 0)
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (workload_type < 0) {
+ result = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
+ }
result = smu_cmn_update_table(smu,
SMU_TABLE_ACTIVITY_MONITOR_COEFF, workload_type,
(void *)(&activity_monitor_external[i]), false);
if (result) {
dev_err(smu->adev->dev, "[%s] Failed to get activity
monitor!", __func__);
- return result;
+ goto out;
}
}
@@ -1495,7 +1503,10 @@ do
{ \
PRINT_DPM_MONITOR(Fclk_BoosterFreq);
#undef PRINT_DPM_MONITOR
- return size;
+ result = size;
+out:
+ kfree(activity_monitor_external);
+ return result;
}
static int smu_v13_0_7_set_power_profile_mode(struct smu_context
*smu, long *input, uint32_t size)
