| 820ccf8c | 31-Jan-2025 |
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> |
drm/amd/display: Respect user's CONFIG_FRAME_WARN more for dml files
Currently, there are several files in drm/amd/display that aim to have a
higher -Wframe-larger-than value to avoid instances of t
drm/amd/display: Respect user's CONFIG_FRAME_WARN more for dml files
Currently, there are several files in drm/amd/display that aim to have a
higher -Wframe-larger-than value to avoid instances of that warning with
a lower value from the user's configuration. However, with the way that
it is currently implemented, it does not respect the user's request via
CONFIG_FRAME_WARN for a higher stack frame limit, which can cause pain
when new instances of the warning appear and break the build due to
CONFIG_WERROR.
Adjust the logic to switch from a hard coded -Wframe-larger-than value
to only using the value as a minimum clamp and deferring to the
requested value from CONFIG_FRAME_WARN if it is higher.
Suggested-by: Harry Wentland <harry.wentland@amd.com>
Reported-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/2025013003-audience-opposing-7f95@gregkh/
Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
show more ...
|
| e2c4c6c1 | 17-Dec-2024 |
Alex Hung <alex.hung@amd.com> |
drm/amd/display: Initialize denominator defaults to 1
[WHAT & HOW]
Variables, used as denominators and maybe not assigned to other values,
should be initialized to non-zero to avoid DIVIDE_BY_ZERO,
drm/amd/display: Initialize denominator defaults to 1
[WHAT & HOW]
Variables, used as denominators and maybe not assigned to other values,
should be initialized to non-zero to avoid DIVIDE_BY_ZERO, as reported
by Coverity.
Reviewed-by: Austin Zheng <austin.zheng@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigo.siqueira@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Tom Chung <chiahsuan.chung@amd.com>
Tested-by: Daniel Wheeler <daniel.wheeler@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
show more ...
|
| e4479aec | 20-Dec-2024 |
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> |
drm/amd/display: Increase sanitizer frame larger than limit when compile testing with clang
Commit 24909d9ec7c3 ("drm/amd/display: Overwriting dualDPP UBF values
before usage") added a new warning i
drm/amd/display: Increase sanitizer frame larger than limit when compile testing with clang
Commit 24909d9ec7c3 ("drm/amd/display: Overwriting dualDPP UBF values
before usage") added a new warning in dml2/display_mode_core.c when
building allmodconfig with clang:
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dml2/display_mode_core.c:6268:13: error: stack frame size (3128) exceeds limit (3072) in 'dml_prefetch_check' [-Werror,-Wframe-larger-than]
6268 | static void dml_prefetch_check(struct display_mode_lib_st *mode_lib)
| ^
Commit be4e3509314a ("drm/amd/display: DML21 Reintegration For Various
Fixes") introduced one in dml2_core/dml2_core_dcn4_calcs.c with the same
configuration:
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dml2/dml21/src/dml2_core/dml2_core_dcn4_calcs.c:7236:13: error: stack frame size (3256) exceeds limit (3072) in 'dml_core_mode_support' [-Werror,-Wframe-larger-than]
7236 | static bool dml_core_mode_support(struct dml2_core_calcs_mode_support_ex *in_out_params)
| ^
In the case of the first warning, the stack usage was already at the
limit at the parent change, so the offending change was rather
innocuous. In the case of the second warning, there was a rather
dramatic increase in stack usage compared to the parent:
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dml2/dml21/src/dml2_core/dml2_core_dcn4_calcs.c:7032:13: error: stack frame size (2696) exceeds limit (2048) in 'dml_core_mode_support' [-Werror,-Wframe-larger-than]
7032 | static bool dml_core_mode_support(struct dml2_core_calcs_mode_support_ex *in_out_params)
| ^
This is an unfortunate interaction between an issue with stack slot
reuse in LLVM that gets exacerbated by sanitization (which gets enabled
with all{mod,yes}config) and function calls using a much higher number
of parameters than is typical in the kernel, necessitating passing most
of these values on the stack.
While it is possible that there should be source code changes to address
these warnings, this code is difficult to modify for various reasons, as
has been noted in other changes that have occurred for similar reasons,
such as commit 6740ec97bcdb ("drm/amd/display: Increase frame warning
limit with KASAN or KCSAN in dml2").
Increase the frame larger than limit when compile testing with clang and
the sanitizers enabled to avoid this breakage in all{mod,yes}config, as
they are commonly used and valuable testing targets. While it is not the
best to hide this issue, it is not really relevant when compile testing,
as the sanitizers are commonly stressful on optimizations and they are
only truly useful at runtime, which COMPILE_TEST states will not occur
with the current build.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202412121748.chuX4sap-lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
show more ...
|
| a317017f | 24-Jul-2024 |
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> |
drm/amd/display: Reapply fdedd77b0eb3
Commit 2563391e57b5 ("drm/amd/display: DML2.1 resynchronization") blew
away the compiler warning fix from commit 2fde4fdddc1f
("drm/amd/display: Avoid -Wenum-fl
drm/amd/display: Reapply fdedd77b0eb3
Commit 2563391e57b5 ("drm/amd/display: DML2.1 resynchronization") blew
away the compiler warning fix from commit 2fde4fdddc1f
("drm/amd/display: Avoid -Wenum-float-conversion in
add_margin_and_round_to_dfs_grainularity()"), causing the warning to
reappear.
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../display/dc/dml2/dml21/src/dml2_dpmm/dml2_dpmm_dcn4.c:183:58: error: arithmetic between enumeration type 'enum dentist_divider_range' and floating-point type 'double' [-Werror,-Wenum-float-conversion]
183 | divider = (unsigned int)(DFS_DIVIDER_RANGE_SCALE_FACTOR * (vco_freq_khz / clock_khz));
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 error generated.
Apply the fix again to resolve the warning.
Re-apply again after commit be4e3509314a ("drm/amd/display: DML21 Reintegration For Various Fixes")
This should be making its way back to the original DML trees this time. (Alex)
Fixes: be4e3509314a ("drm/amd/display: DML21 Reintegration For Various Fixes")
Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/3841
Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
show more ...
|
| 57a793a7 | 05-Dec-2024 |
Nicholas Kazlauskas <nicholas.kazlauskas@amd.com> |
drm/amd/display: Apply (some) policy for DML2 formulation on DCN35/DCN351
[Why]
Dropping the entirety of dml2_policy_build_synthetic_soc_states exposes
an issue for states that cannot be filled via
drm/amd/display: Apply (some) policy for DML2 formulation on DCN35/DCN351
[Why]
Dropping the entirety of dml2_policy_build_synthetic_soc_states exposes
an issue for states that cannot be filled via bbox_overrides and rely on
the default parameters that may or may not be present depending on the
DM.
For amdgpu_dm this results in missing parameters for most of the struct
in higher states:
- sr_exit_time_us
- sr_enter_plus_exit_time_us
- sr_exit_z8_time_us
- sr_enter_plus_exit_z8_time_us
- urgent_latency_pixel_data_only_us
- urgent_latency_pixel_mixed_with_vm_data_us
- urgent_latency_vm_data_only_us
- dram_clock_change_latency_us
- fclk_change_latency_us
- usr_retraining_latency_us
- writeback_latency_us
- urgent_latency_adjustment_fabric_clock_component_us
- urgent_latency_adjustment_fabric_clock_reference_mhz
- dscclk_mhz
- phyclk_mhz
- phyclk_d18_mhz
- phyclk_d32_mhz
- use_ideal_dram_bw_strobe
[How]
Copy from the first state, applying a minimal policy to set max clocks
for SOC independent values.
Then copy the SOC dependent ones from the states modified by
bbox_overrides.
Tested-by: Daniel Wheeler <daniel.wheeler@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Aurabindo Pillai <aurabindo.pillai@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Kazlauskas <nicholas.kazlauskas@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigo.siqueira@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
show more ...
|
| 24909d9e | 26-Nov-2024 |
Ausef Yousof <Ausef.Yousof@amd.com> |
drm/amd/display: Overwriting dualDPP UBF values before usage
[WHY]
Right now in dml2 mode validation we are calculating UBF parameters for
prefetch calculation for single and dual DPP scenarios. Dat
drm/amd/display: Overwriting dualDPP UBF values before usage
[WHY]
Right now in dml2 mode validation we are calculating UBF parameters for
prefetch calculation for single and dual DPP scenarios. Data structure
to store such values are just 1D arrays, the single DPP values are
overwritten by the dualDPP values, and we end up using dualDPP for
prefetch calculations twice (once in place of singleDPP support check
and again for dual).
This naturally leads to many problems, one of which validating a mode in
"singleDPP" (when we used dual DPP parameters) and sending the singleDPP
parameters to mode programming, if we cannot support then we observe the
corruption as described in the ticket.
[HOW]
UBF values need to have 2d arrays to store values specific to single and
dual DPP states to avoid single DPP values being overwritten. Other
parameters are recorded on a per state basis such as prefetch UBF values
but they are in the same loop used for calculation and at that point its
fine to overwrite them, its not the case for plain UBF values.
Reviewed-by: Nicholas Kazlauskas <nicholas.kazlauskas@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Ausef Yousof <Ausef.Yousof@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Aurabindo Pillai <aurabindo.pillai@amd.com>
Tested-by: Daniel Wheeler <daniel.wheeler@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
show more ...
|