2019-07-04 14:46:23

by Colin King

Subject: [PATCH][next] drm/amdgpu/psp: fix incorrect logic when checking asic_type

From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>

Currently the check of the asic_type is always returning true because
of the use of ||. Fix this by using && instead. Also break overly
wide line.

Addresses-Coverity: ("Constant expression result")
Fixes: dab70ff24db6 ("drm/amdgpu/psp: add psp support for navi14")
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c
index 527dc371598d..e4afd34e3034 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c
@@ -540,7 +540,8 @@ psp_v11_0_sram_map(struct amdgpu_device *adev,

case AMDGPU_UCODE_ID_RLC_G:
*sram_offset = 0x2000;
- if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 || adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
+ if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 &&
+ adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
*sram_addr_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(GC, 0, mmRLC_GPM_UCODE_ADDR);
*sram_data_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(GC, 0, mmRLC_GPM_UCODE_DATA);
} else {
@@ -551,7 +552,8 @@ psp_v11_0_sram_map(struct amdgpu_device *adev,

case AMDGPU_UCODE_ID_SDMA0:
*sram_offset = 0x0;
- if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 || adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
+ if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 &&
+ adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
*sram_addr_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(SDMA0, 0, mmSDMA0_UCODE_ADDR);
*sram_data_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(SDMA0, 0, mmSDMA0_UCODE_DATA);
} else {
--
2.20.1

2019-07-04 16:35:21

by walter harms

Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] drm/amdgpu/psp: fix incorrect logic when checking asic_type

Am 04.07.2019 16:23, schrieb Colin King:
> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>
> Currently the check of the asic_type is always returning true because
> of the use of ||. Fix this by using && instead. Also break overly
> wide line.
>
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Constant expression result")
> Fixes: dab70ff24db6 ("drm/amdgpu/psp: add psp support for navi14")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c
> index 527dc371598d..e4afd34e3034 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c
> @@ -540,7 +540,8 @@ psp_v11_0_sram_map(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>
> case AMDGPU_UCODE_ID_RLC_G:
> *sram_offset = 0x2000;
> - if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 || adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
> + if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 &&
> + adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
> *sram_addr_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(GC, 0, mmRLC_GPM_UCODE_ADDR);
> *sram_data_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(GC, 0, mmRLC_GPM_UCODE_DATA);
> } else {
> @@ -551,7 +552,8 @@ psp_v11_0_sram_map(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>
> case AMDGPU_UCODE_ID_SDMA0:
> *sram_offset = 0x0;
> - if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 || adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
> + if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 &&
> + adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
> *sram_addr_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(SDMA0, 0, mmSDMA0_UCODE_ADDR);
> *sram_data_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(SDMA0, 0, mmSDMA0_UCODE_DATA);
> } else {


maybe it is better to use
if (adev->asic_type == CHIP_NAVI10 ||
adev->asic_type == CHIP_NAVI14) {

i guess tha was intended here and it is more easy to read.
ppl are bad in non-non reading.

re,
wh

2019-07-04 17:06:07

by Colin King

Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] drm/amdgpu/psp: fix incorrect logic when checking asic_type

On 04/07/2019 17:22, walter harms wrote:
>
>
> Am 04.07.2019 16:23, schrieb Colin King:
>> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>>
>> Currently the check of the asic_type is always returning true because
>> of the use of ||. Fix this by using && instead. Also break overly
>> wide line.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity: ("Constant expression result")
>> Fixes: dab70ff24db6 ("drm/amdgpu/psp: add psp support for navi14")
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c | 6 ++++--
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c
>> index 527dc371598d..e4afd34e3034 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/psp_v11_0.c
>> @@ -540,7 +540,8 @@ psp_v11_0_sram_map(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>>
>> case AMDGPU_UCODE_ID_RLC_G:
>> *sram_offset = 0x2000;
>> - if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 || adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
>> + if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 &&
>> + adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
>> *sram_addr_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(GC, 0, mmRLC_GPM_UCODE_ADDR);
>> *sram_data_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(GC, 0, mmRLC_GPM_UCODE_DATA);
>> } else {
>> @@ -551,7 +552,8 @@ psp_v11_0_sram_map(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>>
>> case AMDGPU_UCODE_ID_SDMA0:
>> *sram_offset = 0x0;
>> - if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 || adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
>> + if (adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI10 &&
>> + adev->asic_type != CHIP_NAVI14) {
>> *sram_addr_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(SDMA0, 0, mmSDMA0_UCODE_ADDR);
>> *sram_data_reg_offset = SOC15_REG_OFFSET(SDMA0, 0, mmSDMA0_UCODE_DATA);
>> } else {
>
>
> maybe it is better to use
> if (adev->asic_type == CHIP_NAVI10 ||
> adev->asic_type == CHIP_NAVI14) {
>
> i guess tha was intended here and it is more easy to read.
> ppl are bad in non-non reading.

I'm not sure what the original intent was now. Lets see what the folk
at AMD say about this.

>
> re,
> wh
>