Le 15/12/2022 à 17:36, Arnd Bergmann a écrit :
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2ngtmty...@public.gmane.org>

The activity_monitor_external[] array is too big to fit on the
kernel stack, resulting in this warning with clang:

drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c:1438:12: error: 
stack frame size (1040) exceeds limit (1024) in 
'smu_v13_0_7_get_power_profile_mode' [-Werror,-Wframe-larger-than]

Use dynamic allocation instead. It should also be possible to
have single element here instead of the array, but this seems
easier.

Fixes: 334682ae8151 ("drm/amd/pm: enable workload type change on smu_v13_0_7")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd-r2ngtmty...@public.gmane.org>
---
  .../drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c  | 21 ++++++++++++++-----
  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c
index c270f94a1b86..7eba854e09ec 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/pm/swsmu/smu13/smu_v13_0_7_ppt.c
@@ -1439,7 +1439,7 @@ static int smu_v13_0_7_get_power_limit(struct smu_context 
*smu,
static int smu_v13_0_7_get_power_profile_mode(struct smu_context *smu, char *buf)
  {
-       DpmActivityMonitorCoeffIntExternal_t 
activity_monitor_external[PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_COUNT];
+       DpmActivityMonitorCoeffIntExternal_t *activity_monitor_external;
        uint32_t i, j, size = 0;
        int16_t workload_type = 0;
        int result = 0;
@@ -1447,6 +1447,12 @@ static int smu_v13_0_7_get_power_profile_mode(struct 
smu_context *smu, char *buf
        if (!buf)
                return -EINVAL;
+ activity_monitor_external = kcalloc(sizeof(activity_monitor_external),

Hi,

Before, 'activity_monitor_external' was not initialized.
Maybe kcalloc() is enough?

sizeof(*activity_monitor_external)?
     ~~~~

+                                           PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_COUNT,
+                                           GFP_KERNEL);
+       if (!activity_monitor_external)
+               return -ENOMEM;
+
        size += sysfs_emit_at(buf, size, "                              ");
        for (i = 0; i <= PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_WINDOW3D; i++)

Unrelated, but wouldn't it be more straightforward with "< PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_COUNT"?

                size += sysfs_emit_at(buf, size, "%-14s%s", 
amdgpu_pp_profile_name[i],
@@ -1459,15 +1465,17 @@ static int smu_v13_0_7_get_power_profile_mode(struct 
smu_context *smu, char *buf
                workload_type = smu_cmn_to_asic_specific_index(smu,
                                                               
CMN2ASIC_MAPPING_WORKLOAD,
                                                               i);
-               if (workload_type < 0)
-                       return -EINVAL;
+               if (workload_type < 0) {
+                       result = -EINVAL;
+                       goto out;
+               }
result = smu_cmn_update_table(smu,
                                          SMU_TABLE_ACTIVITY_MONITOR_COEFF, 
workload_type,
                                          (void 
*)(&activity_monitor_external[i]), false);
                if (result) {
                        dev_err(smu->adev->dev, "[%s] Failed to get activity 
monitor!", __func__);
-                       return result;
+                       goto out;
                }
        }
@@ -1495,7 +1503,10 @@ do { \
        PRINT_DPM_MONITOR(Fclk_BoosterFreq);
  #undef PRINT_DPM_MONITOR
- return size;
+       result = size;
+out:
+       kfree(activity_monitor_external);
+       return result;
  }
static int smu_v13_0_7_set_power_profile_mode(struct smu_context *smu, long *input, uint32_t size)

Reply via email to