ni_patch_single_dependency_table_based_on_leakage() return zero or
negative error code. But ni_patch_dependency_tables_based_on_leakage()
doesn't check the return value of the first function call. It's same for
ni_dpm_init(). It's better to add this error code check.
Signed-off-by: Su Hui <su...@nfschina.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c | 9 ++++++++-
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c
index 3e1c1a392fb7..f521dc929a06 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/ni_dpm.c
@@ -1010,6 +1010,8 @@ static int
ni_patch_dependency_tables_based_on_leakage(struct radeon_device *rde
ret = ni_patch_single_dependency_table_based_on_leakage(rdev,
&rdev->pm.dpm.dyn_state.vddc_dependency_on_sclk);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
ret = ni_patch_single_dependency_table_based_on_leakage(rdev,
&rdev->pm.dpm.dyn_state.vddc_dependency_on_mclk);
@@ -4098,7 +4100,12 @@ int ni_dpm_init(struct radeon_device *rdev)
rdev->pm.dpm.dyn_state.vddc_dependency_on_dispclk.entries[3].clk =
72000;
rdev->pm.dpm.dyn_state.vddc_dependency_on_dispclk.entries[3].v = 900;
- ni_patch_dependency_tables_based_on_leakage(rdev);
+ ret = ni_patch_dependency_tables_based_on_leakage(rdev);
+ if (ret) {
+
kfree(rdev->pm.dpm.dyn_state.vddc_dependency_on_dispclk.entries);
+ r600_free_extended_power_table(rdev);
+ return ret;
+ }
if (rdev->pm.dpm.voltage_response_time == 0)
rdev->pm.dpm.voltage_response_time =
R600_VOLTAGERESPONSETIME_DFLT;
--
2.30.2
