On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 07:18:30AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > 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?
We always use dev_priv->wm.skl_latency[] for gen9+. See
{pri,spr,cur}_wm_latency_show(), skl_setup_wm_latency(), etc.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
