* [bug report] drm/i915/uc: prefer intel_gt over i915 in GuC/HuC paths
@ 2019-07-23 15:00 Dan Carpenter
2019-07-23 15:08 ` Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2019-07-23 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: daniele.ceraolospurio; +Cc: intel-gfx
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.
174 }
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [bug report] drm/i915/uc: prefer intel_gt over i915 in GuC/HuC paths
2019-07-23 15:00 [bug report] drm/i915/uc: prefer intel_gt over i915 in GuC/HuC paths Dan Carpenter
@ 2019-07-23 15:08 ` Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2019-07-23 15:17 ` Chris Wilson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio @ 2019-07-23 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter; +Cc: intel-gfx
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.
Daniele
> 174 }
>
> regards,
> dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [bug report] drm/i915/uc: prefer intel_gt over i915 in GuC/HuC paths
2019-07-23 15:08 ` Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
@ 2019-07-23 15:17 ` Chris Wilson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2019-07-23 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Carpenter, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio; +Cc: intel-gfx
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@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-07-23 15:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-07-23 15:00 [bug report] drm/i915/uc: prefer intel_gt over i915 in GuC/HuC paths Dan Carpenter
2019-07-23 15:08 ` Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
2019-07-23 15:17 ` Chris Wilson
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.