Quoting Daniele Ceraolo Spurio (2019-07-23 16:08:49)
>
>
> On 7/23/2019 8:00 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Hello Daniele Ceraolo Spurio,
> >
> > The patch 84b1ca2f0e68: "drm/i915/uc: prefer intel_gt over i915 in
> > GuC/HuC paths" from Jul 13, 2019, leads to the following static
> > checker warning:
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_huc.c:173 intel_huc_check_status()
> > warn: masking a bool
> >
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_huc.c
> > 161 int intel_huc_check_status(struct intel_huc *huc)
> > 162 {
> > 163 struct intel_gt *gt = huc_to_gt(huc);
> > 164 intel_wakeref_t wakeref;
> > 165 bool status = false;
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 166
> > 167 if (!intel_uc_is_using_huc(>->uc))
> > 168 return -ENODEV;
> > 169
> > 170 with_intel_runtime_pm(>->i915->runtime_pm, wakeref)
> > 171 status = intel_uncore_read(gt->uncore, huc->status.reg);
> > 172
> > 173 return (status & huc->status.mask) == huc->status.value;
> > ^^^^^^
> >
> > It definitely looks like status should be a u32 or something.
>
> Yes, definitely wrong. Will send a fix soon.
> This highlights even more the lack of testing we have around HuC.
On gen11, this works out as return (status & true) == true;
So while definitely incorrect code, it just happens to work so long as
we don't look at gen9...
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
