On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 15:53:34 +0100, Chris Wilson
<ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
gcc-4.7 is not very smart and can not tell that "si" is guarded by size
being 0. So it complains,
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c: In function ‘csr_load_work_fn’:
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c:204:3: warning: ‘si’ may be used
uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c:190:30: note: ‘si’ was declared in
Give in and mark si as NULL.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.sriva...@intel.com>
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.v...@intel.com>
Cc: Imre Deak <imre.d...@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
index 3e1f86d0c6cc..77d8b3d483ca 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
@@ -198,6 +198,7 @@ intel_get_stepping_info(struct drm_i915_private
*dev_priv)
si = bxt_stepping_info;
} else {
size = 0;
+ si = NULL;
}
if (INTEL_REVID(dev_priv) < size)
Not only gcc was complaning here, smatch report was similar:
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c:204
intel_get_stepping_info() error: uninitialized symbol 'si'
and marking si as NULL silence that error too, so:
Reviewed-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdec...@intel.com>
But at the same time I'm wondering if is it ok that we silently
convert higher SKL/BXT revisions into wildcard ... but this is
another story.
Michal
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
