On 20/10/2015 11:00 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.10.15 at 16:47, wrote:
>> On 19/10/2015 6:29 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> --- 4.3-rc6/drivers/gpu/drm/mgag200/mgag200_mode.c
>>> +++ 4.3-rc6-mgag200-uninit/drivers/gpu/drm/mgag200/mgag200_mode.c
>>> @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ static int mga_g200se_set_
On 19/10/2015 6:29 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> I can only guess that instead of testm/testn (which are either
> uninitialized or have pre-determined values at the end of the preceding
> loops) n and m were meant to be used by commit e829d7ef9f
> ("drm/mgag200: Add support for a new rev of G200e"). In
I can only guess that instead of testm/testn (which are either
uninitialized or have pre-determined values at the end of the preceding
loops) n and m were meant to be used by commit e829d7ef9f
("drm/mgag200: Add support for a new rev of G200e"). In any event the
compiler is right in warning that te
>>> On 20.10.15 at 16:47, wrote:
> On 19/10/2015 6:29 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- 4.3-rc6/drivers/gpu/drm/mgag200/mgag200_mode.c
>> +++ 4.3-rc6-mgag200-uninit/drivers/gpu/drm/mgag200/mgag200_mode.c
>> @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ static int mga_g200se_set_plls(struct mg
>> }
>>
I can only guess that instead of testm/testn (which are either
uninitialized or have pre-determined values at the end of the preceding
loops) n and m were meant to be used by commit e829d7ef9f
("drm/mgag200: Add support for a new rev of G200e"). In any event the
compiler is right in warning that te