> > Increase all the latency fields to 8 members, which is enough for SKL.
> >
> > I don't know if they are correctly initialized upto 8, but dev_priv
> > should start out as zero, so presumably they will be zero.
>
> Thanks, the warning should be fixed by commit
>
> c6deb5e97ded ("drm/i915/pm: Make the wm parameter of print_wm_latency a pointer")
>
> in drm-intel-next.
That's just hiding the problem.
>
> There doesn't actually seem to be a bug here,
Can you explain that please?
This is the loop in question
max_level = ilk_wm_max_level(dev_priv);
for (level = 0; level <= max_level; level++) {
unsigned int latency = wm[level];
if (latency == 0) {
drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm,
"%s WM%d latency not provided\n",
name, level);
continue;
}
...
}
(no other loop termination condition)
and ilk_wm_max_level is
int ilk_wm_max_level(const struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
{
/* how many WM levels are we expecting */
if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 9)
return 7;
else if (IS_HASWELL(dev_priv) || IS_BROADWELL(dev_priv))
return 4;
else if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 6)
return 3;
else
return 2;
}
There is no loop termination in the loop above, it will always read
every member through the max level reported. And on GEN>=9 it will be 7, while
the input array for several of the cases has only 5 members.
So it will read beyond the array and gcc is correct in complaining.
What do I miss when you say there is no bug?
-Andi
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
