On Wed, 05 May 2021, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 07:18:30AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> What do I miss when you say there is no bug?
>
> We always use dev_priv->wm.skl_latency[] for gen9+. See
> {pri,spr,cur}_wm_latency_show(), skl_setup_wm_latency(), etc.
Granted, we should pr
On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 07:18:30AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Increase all the latency fields to 8 members, which is enough for SKL.
> > >
> > > I don't know if they are correctly initialized upto 8, but dev_priv
> > > should start out as zero, so presumably they will be zero.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Increase all the latency fields to 8 members, which is enough for SKL.
> >
> > I don't know if they are correctly initialized upto 8, but dev_priv
> > should start out as zero, so presumably they will be zero.
>
> Thanks, the warning should be fixed by commit
>
> c6deb5e97ded ("drm/i915/pm: M
On Tue, 04 May 2021, Andi Kleen wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen
>
> Newer gcc prints the following warning:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c:3057:9: warning: ‘intel_print_wm_latency’
> reading 16 bytes from a region of size 10 [-Wstringop-overread]
> and some other related warnings in similar funct
From: Andi Kleen
Newer gcc prints the following warning:
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c:3057:9: warning: ‘intel_print_wm_latency’
reading 16 bytes from a region of size 10 [-Wstringop-overread]
and some other related warnings in similar functions.
gcc has a point here. Some of the latency arr
