From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5FE93101A8 for ; Mon, 5 Jan 2026 16:28:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.13 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767630524; cv=none; b=GwngglJVz1lKm1xZDv5zAny5iKV87hTqRxw0UIoLpmdA8gRj24l0pFLoj8livJXFWDtIQR+qEz00WTco4e1S4sE2jxCnRfC6Nz+N5/fwK0nJyeM9FKWDYMx1b75RMQJ5NPWJimHGWDtFOuKCV0m4C6yYPfscyFtHGfdoAgJqe10= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767630524; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FsPS/LubOaNTccnvOYz0BxmjeM7vrFfXaA9Rl62TCtg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=gB5cAn//N3WarSUF2z7kV/NCGuOu3W94XeRhaI4uG+O8unZNMyL8mqkb0QRPywKSg+ffjp66mNaLcoHeKDJjF14jAfc4aamDRQJdrW2rsyC7oNcL2/oavcslZFSVa8Xixzx1ChguTCcn8lQzCfsKL8dUBDYt1JfADOIncYTgW2M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=HcoIqinR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.13 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="HcoIqinR" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1767630522; x=1799166522; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=FsPS/LubOaNTccnvOYz0BxmjeM7vrFfXaA9Rl62TCtg=; b=HcoIqinR7+ySvfXw8DkOrydpZ6qWis5p7Nr7KhfglO5HdzhT87hvR++k A4oZHc6TLUOywVN+qQPha3E65cLVDbrwFutXCa15iQBuKO7edRUB4a6xy FfTITd2InUB/XhFPmO8oGiBPyxQuFMHeN14Gjeav5UnS+dCMbYTxG5U4s g4V4xtRf8mX6vVhvKyaOqDKCTDktGwNmslOFIjLpHsap+Wom0Rbnequn+ 1pA9M/ROkfeTCiff3DEdxK1QpdnrhosHrUMjXWc2bATwXtD/0XfoR7/AP 20HnjX2R55QWOYJfzX8s5SmH8U+tkO6MlIMEcWRCV6WgHGk2a1EaVzaiQ Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: lFBGuP24TYGyyaRo8UBbJg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: hBODry5STh2gPzqy6vNo0w== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11662"; a="71574084" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,203,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="71574084" Received: from fmviesa003.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.143]) by fmvoesa107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Jan 2026 08:28:35 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: yjeDY+T2RFOcWKugteKcWw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: HHb9E8xQQ6CS5mko4iL4fA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from klitkey1-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.244.215]) by fmviesa003-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Jan 2026 08:28:33 -0800 Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2026 18:28:31 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Sun Jian Cc: Andy Shevchenko , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] staging: fbtft: core: avoid large stack usage in DT init parsing Message-ID: References: <20260104110638.532615-1-sun.jian.kdev@gmail.com> <20260104110638.532615-2-sun.jian.kdev@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-staging@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260104110638.532615-2-sun.jian.kdev@gmail.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Sun, Jan 04, 2026 at 07:06:35PM +0800, Sun Jian wrote: > Clang reports a large stack frame for fbtft_init_display_from_property() > (-Wframe-larger-than=1024) when the init sequence is emitted through a > fixed 64-argument write_register() call. > > write_reg()/write_register() relies on NUMARGS((int[]){...}) and large > varargs which inflates stack usage. Switch the DT "init" path to send the > command byte and the payload via fbtft_write_buf_dc() instead. > > No functional change intended: the same register values are sent in the > same order, only the transport is changed. How did you test this? ... > struct device *dev = par->info->device; > - int buf[64], count, index, i, j, ret; > + u8 buf[64]; > + int count, index, i, j, ret; Please, try to preserve reversed xmas tree order. > u32 *values; > u32 val; > ... > - buf[i++] = val; > + buf[i++] = val & 0xFF; Unneeded change, I suppose. ... > - par->fbtftops.write_register(par, i, > - buf[0], buf[1], buf[2], buf[3], > - buf[4], buf[5], buf[6], buf[7], > - buf[8], buf[9], buf[10], buf[11], > - buf[12], buf[13], buf[14], buf[15], > - buf[16], buf[17], buf[18], buf[19], > - buf[20], buf[21], buf[22], buf[23], > - buf[24], buf[25], buf[26], buf[27], > - buf[28], buf[29], buf[30], buf[31], > - buf[32], buf[33], buf[34], buf[35], > - buf[36], buf[37], buf[38], buf[39], > - buf[40], buf[41], buf[42], buf[43], > - buf[44], buf[45], buf[46], buf[47], > - buf[48], buf[49], buf[50], buf[51], > - buf[52], buf[53], buf[54], buf[55], > - buf[56], buf[57], buf[58], buf[59], > - buf[60], buf[61], buf[62], buf[63]); > + /* buf[0] is command, buf[1..i-1] is data */ > + ret = fbtft_write_buf_dc(par, &buf[0], 1, 0); > + if (ret < 0) > + goto out_free; > + > + if (i > 1) { > + ret = fbtft_write_buf_dc(par, &buf[1], i - 1, 1); > + if (ret < 0) > + goto out_free; > + } I believe this is incorrect change and has not to be applied. write != write_register. Without any evidence of testing, definite NAK to it. Otherwise, please provide detailed testing pattern and which devices were tested. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko