On Thu, 2023-06-22 at 12:09 +0000, Coelho, Luciano wrote: > On Thu, 2023-06-22 at 10:08 +0000, Kandpal, Suraj wrote: > > > On Tue, 2023-06-20 at 10:30 +0000, Kandpal, Suraj wrote: > > > > > When intel_display_device_probe() (and, subsequently, > > > > > probe_gmdid_display()) returns, the caller expects ver, rel > > > > > and > > > > > step > > > > > to be initialized. Since there's no way to check that there > > > > > was a > > > > > failure and no_display was returned without some further > > > > > refactoring, pre- initiliaze all these values to zero to keep > > > > > it > > > > > simple and safe. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Looks okay to me just a small suggestion/question below. > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.c | 9 > > > > > +++++++++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > > a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.c > > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.c > > > > > index 464df1764a86..fb6354e9e704 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.c > > > > > @@ -731,6 +731,15 @@ probe_gmdid_display(struct > > > > > drm_i915_private > > > > > *i915, u16 *ver, u16 *rel, u16 *step > > > > > u32 val; > > > > > int i; > > > > > > > > > > + /* The caller expects to ver, rel and step to be > > > > > initialized > > > > > + * here, and there's no good way to check when there > > > > > was a > > > > > + * failure and no_display was returned. So > > > > > initialize > > > > > all > > > > > these > > > > > + * values here zero, to be sure. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + *ver = 0; > > > > > + *rel = 0; > > > > > + *step = 0; > > > > > + > > > > > > > > From what I can see this is only called from > > > > intel_display_device_probe() which is in turn called from > > > > intel_device_info_driver_create() where the above variables are > > > > defined maybe we initialize these values there itself. > > > > > > Thanks for the review! > > > > > > I thought about initializing the variables on the caller side, > > > but > > > reckoned that > > > it would be more intuitive to initialize them in the > > > probe_gmdid_display() function instead, because the caller > > > expects > > > those > > > values to be set in successful cases and there's no way for it to > > > know whether > > > there was a failure or not (because we return a pointer to local > > > no_display > > > structure that the caller doesn't know about). > > > > > > Obviously with the current code in the caller, that doesn't make > > > much > > > difference, but I thought it was cleaner as I did. > > > > > > But I'm okay to change it and initialize them at the caller, so > > > just let me know > > > if you want that. > > > > I don’t think it needs to be changed then and the explanation looks > > reasonable. > > So this LGTM > > > > Reviewed-by: Suraj Kandpal <suraj.kandpal@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Thanks, Suraj! Can someone merge this for me, please? This is now merged. BR, Jouni Högander > > -- > Cheers, > Luca.
