From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Ville Syrjala" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] drm/i915/de: Introduce dislay->mmio and intel_de_init()
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2026 22:31:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-198229@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261104221842.18799-2-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] drm/i915/de: NULL display->mmio.uncore when intel_de_init() is skipped
--
commit 0c47f694d22974ac99844e39b462f72389dd014b
Author: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
drm/i915/de: Introduce dislay->mmio and intel_de_init()
This commit adds a display->mmio struct and intel_de_init() to initialize
display->mmio.uncore, and updates __to_uncore() to return display->mmio.uncore
instead of calling to_intel_uncore(display->drm).
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_de.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_de.h
> index d0a239a369807..f1135ee5071b4 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_de.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_de.h
> @@ -14,9 +14,11 @@
>
> static inline struct intel_uncore *__to_uncore(struct intel_display *display)
> {
> - return to_intel_uncore(display->drm);
> + return display->mmio.uncore;
> }
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.c
> index c74256359c253..f1bd1252a9602 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.c
> @@ -1798,6 +1798,13 @@ static void __intel_display_device_info_runtime_init(struct intel_display *displ
> struct intel_display_runtime_info *display_runtime = DISPLAY_RUNTIME_INFO(display);
> enum pipe pipe;
>
> + /*
> + * TODO end of intel_display_device_probe() would be a more
> + * logical place, but at the moment i915 calls that super
> + * early when things aren't fully set up yet.
> + */
> + intel_de_init(display);
[Severity: High]
Can this leave display->mmio.uncore NULL and cause a NULL pointer dereference
when HAS_DISPLAY(display) is already false before runtime init?
In drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_device.c,
intel_display_device_info_runtime_init() only calls
__intel_display_device_info_runtime_init() when HAS_DISPLAY(display) is true:
void intel_display_device_info_runtime_init(struct intel_display *display)
{
if (HAS_DISPLAY(display))
__intel_display_device_info_runtime_init(display);
On devices where intel_display_device_probe() sets DISPLAY_INFO() to
no_display—such as Ivybridge Quanta server SKUs (INTEL_IVB_Q_IDS via
has_no_display()), PCI IDs without an entry in intel_display_ids like Arctic
Sound-M (INTEL_ATS_M_IDS where find_platform_desc() returns NULL), or GMD_ID
platforms (INTEL_MTL_IDS / INTEL_ARL_IDS) where probe_gmdid_display() reads 0
from GMD_ID_DISPLAY—HAS_DISPLAY(display) is false and
__intel_display_device_info_runtime_init() is skipped.
Because __to_uncore(display) in drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_de.h now
returns display->mmio.uncore instead of computing
to_intel_uncore(display->drm), any subsequent unconditional intel_de_*() call
will pass a NULL struct intel_uncore pointer to intel_uncore_read*() or
intel_uncore_write*():
1. On INTEL_IVB_Q_IDS, ilk_irq_handler() in drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
unconditionally calls ilk_display_irq_master_disable() and
ilk_display_irq_master_enable() in
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_irq.c on every interrupt, which
call intel_de_read_fw(display, DEIER) and intel_de_write_fw(display, DEIER,
...).
2. On INTEL_ATS_M_IDS and headless GMD_ID platforms, gen11_irq_handler() and
dg1_irq_handler() unconditionally call gen11_gu_misc_irq_ack() in
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_irq.c when GEN11_GU_MISC_IRQ is
set, which calls intel_de_read_fw(display, GEN11_GU_MISC_IIR) and
intel_de_write_fw(display, GEN11_GU_MISC_IIR, iir).
3. During system resume, i915_drm_resume() in
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c unconditionally calls
intel_gmbus_reset(display) in drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_gmbus.c,
which calls intel_de_write_fw(display, GMBUS0(display), 0) and
intel_de_write_fw(display, GMBUS4(display), 0).
Should intel_de_init(display) be called unconditionally at the start of
intel_display_device_info_runtime_init() before the HAS_DISPLAY(display)
check?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261104221842.18799-1-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-04 22:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-04 22:18 [PATCH 0/9] drm/i915/de: Work towards uncore elimination Ville Syrjala
2026-11-04 22:18 ` [PATCH 1/9] drm/i915/de: Introduce dislay->mmio and intel_de_init() Ville Syrjala
2026-11-04 22:31 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-11-05 8:58 ` Jani Nikula
2026-11-05 20:03 ` Ville Syrjälä
2026-11-04 23:29 ` Michał Grzelak
2026-11-04 22:18 ` [PATCH 2/9] drm/i915/de: Convert intel_de_{read,write}() into vfuncs Ville Syrjala
2026-11-04 22:18 ` [PATCH 3/9] drm/i915/de: Introduce mmio read/write templates Ville Syrjala
2026-11-04 23:32 ` Michał Grzelak
2026-11-04 22:18 ` [PATCH 4/9] drm/i915/de: Eliminate runtime overhead from DMC wakelock on pre-LNL platforms Ville Syrjala
2026-11-04 22:18 ` [PATCH 5/9] drm/i915/de: Introduce display->mmio.lock Ville Syrjala
2026-11-04 22:35 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-05 9:32 ` Jani Nikula
2026-11-05 13:43 ` Ville Syrjälä
2026-11-05 13:47 ` Jani Nikula
2026-11-04 22:18 ` [PATCH 6/9] drm/i915/uncore: Don't meddle with mmio debug upon user forcewake Ville Syrjala
2026-11-04 22:18 ` [PATCH 7/9] drm/i915/de: Move unclaimed mmio detection into display code Ville Syrjala
2026-11-04 22:36 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-04 22:18 ` [PATCH 8/9] drm/i915/de: Stop using intel_uncore_{read,write}() Ville Syrjala
2026-11-04 22:18 ` [PATCH 9/9] drm/xe: Nuke the intel_uncore_{read,write}() wrappers Ville Syrjala
2026-11-05 0:01 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for drm/i915/de: Work towards uncore elimination Patchwork
2026-11-05 0:03 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2026-11-05 0:40 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2026-11-05 7:10 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for drm/i915/de: Work towards uncore elimination (rev2) Patchwork
2026-11-05 7:13 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2026-11-05 7:47 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2026-11-06 1:17 ` ✓ Xe.CI.FULL: " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=sashiko-outbox-198229@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox