On 04/07/2019 17:22, walter harms wrote:
>
>
> Am 04.07.2019 16:23, schrieb Colin King:
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Currently the check of the asic_type is always returning true because
>> of the use of ||. Fix this by using && instead. Also break overly
>> wide line.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Constant expression result")
>> Fixes: dab70ff24db6 ("drm/amdgpu/psp: add psp support for navi14")
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c | 6 ++++--
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c
>> index 527dc371598d..e4afd34e3034 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c
>> @@ -540,7 +540,8 @@ psp_v11_0_sram_map(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>>
>> case AMDGPU_UCODE_ID_RLC_G:
>> *sram_offset = 0x2000;
>> - if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 || adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
>> + if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 &&
>> + adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
>> *sram_addr_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(GC, 0, mmRLC_GPM_UCODE_ADDR);
>> *sram_data_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(GC, 0, mmRLC_GPM_UCODE_DATA);
>> } else {
>> @@ -551,7 +552,8 @@ psp_v11_0_sram_map(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>>
>> case AMDGPU_UCODE_ID_SDMA0:
>> *sram_offset = 0x0;
>> - if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 || adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
>> + if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 &&
>> + adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
>> *sram_addr_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(SDMA0, 0, mmSDMA0_UCODE_ADDR);
>> *sram_data_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(SDMA0, 0, mmSDMA0_UCODE_DATA);
>> } else {
>
>
> maybe it is better to use
> if (adev->asic_type == CHIP_NAVI10 ||
> adev->asic_type == CHIP_NAVI14) {
>
> i guess tha was intended here and it is more easy to read.
> ppl are bad in non-non reading.
I'm not sure what the original intent was now. Lets see what the folk
at AMD say about this.
>
> re,
> wh
>
