Em Dom, 2018-09-02 às 22:15 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi escreveu: > In case we forget to change intel_port_is_tc > we would be trying to access registers with port == -1, > i.e. PORT_TC_NONE, what would be wrong offset. > There are some many things that would break if intel_port_is_tc() is incorrect that we would have to add a few dozen more WARNs. Why add this specific check at this specific case and not all other checks in other possible cases that could break? > So let's just add a protection and warn here. > > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > index 436c22de33b6..6a93fa9bbbd9 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c > @@ -4886,6 +4886,9 @@ static bool icl_tc_port_connected(struct > drm_i915_private *dev_priv, > bool is_legacy, is_typec, is_tbt; > u32 dpsp; > > + if (WARN_ON(tc_port == PORT_TC_NONE)) > + return false; > + > is_legacy = I915_READ(SDEISR) & SDE_TC_HOTPLUG_ICP(tc_port); > > /* _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
