| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
[Why]
Fixes the following scenario:
- Flip has been prepared sometime during the frame, update pending
- Cursor update happens right when VUPDATE would happen
- OPTC lock acquired, VUPDATE is blocked until next frame
- Flip is delayed potentially infinitely
With the igt@kms_cursor_legacy cursor-vs-flip-legacy test we can
observe nearly *13* frames of delay for some flips on Navi.
[How]
Apply the Raven workaround generically. When close enough to VUPDATE
block cursor updates from occurring from the dc_stream_set_cursor_*
helpers.
This could perhaps be a little smarter by checking if there were
pending updates or flips earlier in the frame on the HUBP side before
applying the delay, but this should be fine for now.
This fixes the kms_cursor_legacy test.
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Kazlauskas <nicholas.kazlauskas@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Aric Cyr <Aric.Cyr@amd.com>
Acked-by: Aurabindo Pillai <aurabindo.pillai@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
Currently RN SOC bounding box update assumes we will get at least
2 clock states from SMU. This isn't always true and because of special
casing on first clock state we end up with low disp, dpp, dsc and phy
clocks.
This change removes the special casing allowing the first state to
acquire correct clocks.
Signed-off-by: Dmytro Laktyushkin <Dmytro.Laktyushkin@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Yang <eric.yang2@amd.com>
Acked-by: Aurabindo Pillai <aurabindo.pillai@amd.com>
Acked-by: Tony Cheng <Tony.Cheng@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
Check before programming the register since it isn't present on
all IPs using this code.
Signed-off-by: Dmytro Laktyushkin <Dmytro.Laktyushkin@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Eric Bernstein <Eric.Bernstein@amd.com>
Acked-by: Aurabindo Pillai <aurabindo.pillai@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
This fixes GPU hangs due to cache coherency issues.
Bump the driver version. Split out from the original patch.
Signed-off-by: Marek Olšák <marek.olsak@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Tested-by: Pierre-Eric Pelloux-Prayer <pierre-eric.pelloux-prayer@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
This fixes GPU hangs due to cache coherency issues.
v2: Split the version bump to a separate patch
Signed-off-by: Marek Olšák <marek.olsak@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Tested-by: Pierre-Eric Pelloux-Prayer <pierre-eric.pelloux-prayer@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
|
|
DCC_INDEPENDENT_128B is needed for displayble DCC on gfx10.
SCANOUT is not needed by the kernel, but Mesa uses it.
Signed-off-by: Marek Olšák <marek.olsak@amd.com>
Acked-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
hwmgr->pm_en is initialized at hwmgr_hw_init.
during amdgpu_device_init, there is amdgpu_asic_reset that calls to
soc15_asic_reset (for V320 usecase, Vega10 asic), in which:
1) soc15_asic_reset_method calls to pp_get_asic_baco_capability (pm_en)
2) soc15_asic_baco_reset calls to pp_set_asic_baco_state (pm_en)
pm_en is used in the above two cases while it has not yet been initialized
So avoid using pm_en in the above two functions for V320 passthrough.
Reviewed-by: Evan Quan <evan.quan@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiecheng Zhou <Tiecheng.Zhou@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
This reverts commit c5207876232649ca5e5ddd6f966d2da75ffded8f.
The commit being reverted changed the wrong place, it should have
changed in func get_asic_baco_capability.
Reviewed-by: Evan Quan <evan.quan@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Tiecheng Zhou <Tiecheng.Zhou@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
[why]
We have seen a green screen after resume from suspend in a Raven system
connected with two displays (HDMI and DP) on X based system. We noticed
that this issue is related to bad DCC metadata from user space which may
generate hangs and consequently an underflow on HUBP. After taking a
deep look at the code path we realized that after resume we try to
restore the commit with the DCC enabled framebuffer but the framebuffer
is no longer valid.
[how]
This problem was only reported on Raven based system and after suspend,
for this reason, this commit adds a new parameter on
fill_plane_dcc_attributes() to give the option of disabling DCC
programmatically. In summary, for disabling DCC we first verify if is a
Raven system and if it is in suspend; if both conditions are true we
disable DCC temporarily, otherwise, it is enabled.
Bug: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/1099
Co-developed-by: Nicholas Kazlauskas <nicholas.kazlauskas@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Kazlauskas <nicholas.kazlauskas@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Siqueira <Rodrigo.Siqueira@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Nicholas Kazlauskas <Nicholas.Kazlauskas@amd.com>
Acked-by: Rodrigo Siqueira <Rodrigo.Siqueira@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
|
|
[Why]
When link loss happened, monitor can not light up if only re-train the
link.
[How]
Blank all the DP streams on this link before re-train the link, and then
unblank the stream
Signed-off-by: Xiaodong Yan <Xiaodong.Yan@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Tony Cheng <Tony.Cheng@amd.com>
Acked-by: Rodrigo Siqueira <Rodrigo.Siqueira@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
[why]
Organizational Unit Identifier register is optional, and its
presence is published via Down Stream Port Count register.
Writing this register when not available will result in errors
[how]
Read this register and continue writing OUI only if the panel
has the support advertised.
Signed-off-by: Aurabindo Pillai <aurabindo.pillai@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Aric Cyr <Aric.Cyr@amd.com>
Acked-by: Rodrigo Siqueira <Rodrigo.Siqueira@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
Looks like I accidentally made it so you couldn't force DPCD backlight
support on, whoops. Fix that.
Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>
Fixes: 17f5d57915be ("drm/i915: Force DPCD backlight mode on X1 Extreme 2nd Gen 4K AMOLED panel")
Cc: Adam Jackson <ajax@redhat.com>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200413214407.1851002-1-lyude@redhat.com
(cherry picked from commit d7fb38ae36a2dc97924b075ad1d1a88792777ea9)
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
|
|
Fix the warning caused by enabling the autosectionlabel extension in the
kernel Sphinx build:
Documentation/gpu/i915.rst:610: WARNING: duplicate label
gpu/i915:layout, other instance in Documentation/gpu/i915.rst
The autosectionlabel extension adds labels to each section title for
cross-referencing, but forbids identical section titles in a
document. With kernel-doc, this includes sections titles in the included
kernel-doc comments.
In the warning message, Sphinx is unable to reference the labels in
their true locations in the kernel-doc comments in source. In this case,
there's "Layout" sections in both gt/intel_workarounds.c and
i915_reg.h. Rename the section in the latter to "File Layout".
Fixes: 58ad30cf91f0 ("docs: fix reference to core-api/namespaces.rst")
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200417130109.12791-1-jani.nikula@intel.com
(cherry picked from commit 27be41de45a70fe1cb0ae1cbd2fd6da1ce3ffe9a)
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
|
|
Right now dp.regs.dp_tp_ctl/status are only set during the encoder
pre_enable() hook, what is causing all reads and writes to those
registers to go to offset 0x0 before pre_enable() is executed.
So if i915 takes the BIOS state and don't do a modeset any following
link retraing will fail.
In the case that i915 needs to do a modeset, the DDI disable sequence
will write to a wrong register not disabling DP 'Transport Enable' in
DP_TP_CTL, making a HDMI modeset in the same port/transcoder to
not light up the monitor.
So here for GENs older than 12, that have those registers fixed at
port offset range it is loading at encoder/port init while for GEN12
it will keep setting it at encoder pre_enable() and during HW state
readout.
Fixes: 4444df6e205b ("drm/i915/tgl: move DP_TP_* to transcoder")
Cc: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200414230442.262092-1-jose.souza@intel.com
(cherry picked from commit edcb9028d66b44d74ba4f8b9daa379b004dc1f85)
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
|
|
As on ICL, we want to use the Type-C aux handlers for the TBT aux wells
to ensure the DP_AUX_CH_CTL_TBT_IO flag is set properly.
Fixes: 656409bbaf87 ("drm/i915/tgl: Add power well support")
Cc: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
Cc: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200415233435.3064257-1-matthew.d.roper@intel.com
Reviewed-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
(cherry picked from commit 3cbdb97564a39020262e62b655e788b63cf426cb)
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
|
|
The check was always succeeding even in case of a mismatch due to the
HDCP_STATUS_ENC bit being set. Make sure both bits are actually set.
Signed-off-by: Oliver Barta <oliver.barta@aptiv.com>
Fixes: 2320175feb74 ("drm/i915: Implement HDCP for HDMI")
Reviewed-by: Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200328104100.12162-1-oliver.barta@aptiv.com
(cherry picked from commit 3ffaf56e912e76cf09c560244c8804f9bebda8b1)
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
|
|
If we use a non-forcewaked write to PMINTRMSK, it does not take effect
until much later, if at all, causing a loss of RPS interrupts and no GPU
reclocking, leaving the GPU running at the wrong frequency for long
periods of time.
Reported-by: Francisco Jerez <currojerez@riseup.net>
Suggested-by: Francisco Jerez <currojerez@riseup.net>
Fixes: 35cc7f32c298 ("drm/i915/gt: Use non-forcewake writes for RPS")
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Francisco Jerez <currojerez@riseup.net>
Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Francisco Jerez <currojerez@riseup.net>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.6+
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200415170318.16771-2-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
(cherry picked from commit a080bd994c4023042a2b605c65fa10a25933f636)
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
|
|
Media decompression support should not be advertised on any display
planes for steppings A0-C0.
Bspec: 53273
Fixes: 2dfbf9d2873a ("drm/i915/tgl: Gen-12 display can decompress surfaces compressed by the media engine")
Cc: Matt Atwood <matthew.s.atwood@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200414211118.2787489-3-matthew.d.roper@intel.com
Reviewed-by: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
(cherry picked from commit dbff5a8db9c630f61a892ab41a283445e01270f5)
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
|
|
tidss uses devm_kzalloc to allocate DRM plane, encoder and crtc objects.
This is not correct as the lifetime of those objects should be longer
than the underlying device's.
When unloading tidss module, the devm_kzalloc'ed objects have already
been freed when tidss_release() is called, and the driver will accesses
freed memory possibly causing a crash, a kernel WARN, or other undefined
behavior, and also KASAN will give a bug.
Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200415092006.26675-1-tomi.valkeinen@ti.com
Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
|
|
|
|
When remapping a mapping where a portion of a VMA is remapped
into another portion of the VMA it can cause the VMA to become
split. During the copy_vma operation the VMA can actually
be remerged if it's an anonymous VMA whose pages have not yet
been faulted. This isn't normally a problem because at the end
of the remap the original portion is unmapped causing it to
become split again.
However, MREMAP_DONTUNMAP leaves that original portion in place which
means that the VMA which was split and then remerged is not actually
split at the end of the mremap. This patch fixes a bug where
we don't detect that the VMAs got remerged and we end up
putting back VM_ACCOUNT on the next mapping which is completely
unreleated. When that next mapping is unmapped it results in
incorrectly unaccounting for the memory which was never accounted,
and eventually we will underflow on the memory comittment.
There is also another issue which is similar, we're currently
accouting for the number of pages in the new_vma but that's wrong.
We need to account for the length of the remap operation as that's
all that is being added. If there was a mapping already at that
location its comittment would have been adjusted as part of
the munmap at the start of the mremap.
A really simple repro can be seen in:
https://gist.github.com/bgaff/e101ce99da7d9a8c60acc641d07f312c
Fixes: e346b3813067 ("mm/mremap: add MREMAP_DONTUNMAP to mremap()")
Reported-by: syzbot <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>
Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The jc42 driver passes I2C client's name as hwmon device name. In case
of device tree probed devices this ends up being part of the compatible
string, "jc-42.4-temp". This name contains hyphens and the hwmon core
doesn't like this:
jc42 2-0018: hwmon: 'jc-42.4-temp' is not a valid name attribute, please fix
This changes the name to "jc42" which doesn't have any illegal
characters.
Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200417092853.31206-1-s.hauer@pengutronix.de
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
|
Nicholas Kazlauskas
Dmytro Laktyushkin
Marek Olšák
Tiecheng Zhou
Rodrigo Siqueira
Xiaodong Yan
Aurabindo Pillai
Lyude Paul
Jani Nikula
José Roberto de Souza
Matt Roper
Oliver Barta
Chris Wilson
Tomi Valkeinen
Linus Torvalds
Brian Geffon
Gustavo A. R. Silva
Sascha Hauer