On Thu, Nov 9, 2023 at 7:14 AM José Pekkarinen <jose.pekkarinen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2023-11-09 11:06, Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 10:43:50AM +0200, José Pekkarinen wrote: > >> On 2023-11-08 09:29, Greg KH wrote: > >> > On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 08:54:35AM +0200, José Pekkarinen wrote: > >> > > The following case seems to be safe to be replaced with a flexible > >> > > array > >> > > to clean up the added coccinelle warning. This patch will just do it. > >> > > > >> > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/smumgr/smu8_smumgr.h:76:38-63: > >> > > WARNING use flexible-array member instead (https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays) > >> > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: José Pekkarinen <jose.pekkarinen@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > > --- > >> > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/smumgr/smu8_smumgr.h | 2 +- > >> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > > > >> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/smumgr/smu8_smumgr.h > >> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/smumgr/smu8_smumgr.h > >> > > index c7b61222d258..1ce4087005f0 100644 > >> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/smumgr/smu8_smumgr.h > >> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/powerplay/smumgr/smu8_smumgr.h > >> > > @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ struct smu8_register_index_data_pair { > >> > > > >> > > struct smu8_ih_meta_data { > >> > > uint32_t command; > >> > > - struct smu8_register_index_data_pair register_index_value_pair[1]; > >> > > + struct smu8_register_index_data_pair register_index_value_pair[]; > >> > > >> > Did you just change this structure size without any need to change any > >> > code as well? How was this tested? > >> > >> I didn't find any use of that struct member, if I missed > >> something here, please let me know and I'll happily address any > >> needed further work. > > > > I don't think this is even a variable array. It's just a one element > > one, which is fine, don't be confused by the coccinelle "warning" here, > > it's fired many false-positives and you need to verify this properly > > with the driver authors first before changing anything. > > My apologies to you, and anybody that feels the same, it is not my > intention to bother with mistaken patches, I just assume that this patch > or any other from me, will go to review process, where it should be fine > if the patch is right, wrong, need further work, or further testing > either > from my side or anybody else, and at the end of the day I need to do > patches if I want to find my mentorship patches, and graduate. > > > In short, you just changed the size of this structure, are you _sure_ > > you can do that? And yes, it doesn't look like this field is used, but > > the structure is, so be careful. > > I don't know, let check it out together and see where this goes. I think it may have been used with the SMU firmware. I'll need to check with that team to determine if this was meant to be a variable sized array or not. Alex
