On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.ha...@intel.com> wrote:
> On 30.08.2022 11:34, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> Avoid BUG_ON(). Actually check the dpll count and bail out loudly with
>> drm_WARN_ON() from the loop before overflowing
>> i915->dpll.shared_dplls[].
>>
>> v2: Rebase
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.c | 6 ++++--
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.c
>> index bbe142056c7c..ed267c918009 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dpll_mgr.c
>> @@ -4199,6 +4199,10 @@ void intel_shared_dpll_init(struct drm_i915_private
>> *dev_priv)
>> dpll_info = dpll_mgr->dpll_info;
>>
>> for (i = 0; dpll_info[i].name; i++) {
>> + if (drm_WARN_ON(&dev_priv->drm,
>> + i >=
>> ARRAY_SIZE(dev_priv->display.dpll.shared_dplls)))
>> + break;
>> +
>
> Shouldn't this check be replaced by some compile time checker.
Can't do that because the dpll_info arrays are null terminated.
> Anyway:
> Reviewed-by: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.ha...@intel.com>
Thanks, but I just pushed the series as Ville already reviewed it.
BR,
Jani.
>
> Regards
> Andrzej
>
>
>> drm_WARN_ON(&dev_priv->drm, i != dpll_info[i].id);
>> dev_priv->display.dpll.shared_dplls[i].info = &dpll_info[i];
>> }
>> @@ -4206,8 +4210,6 @@ void intel_shared_dpll_init(struct drm_i915_private
>> *dev_priv)
>> dev_priv->display.dpll.mgr = dpll_mgr;
>> dev_priv->display.dpll.num_shared_dpll = i;
>> mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.dpll.lock);
>> -
>> - BUG_ON(dev_priv->display.dpll.num_shared_dpll > I915_NUM_PLLS);
>> }
>>
>> /**
>
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
