On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Dan Carpenter dan.carpenter@oracle.com wrote:
Hello Oded Gabbay,
The patch 32c22e994f44: "drm/amdgpu: add amdgpu <--> amdkfd gfx7 interface" from Jun 12, 2015, leads to the following static checker warning:
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gfx_v7.c:453kgd_hqd_destroy() warn: bitwise AND condition is false here
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gfx_v7.c 439 static int kgd_hqd_destroy(struct kgd_dev *kgd, uint32_t reset_type, 440 unsigned int timeout, uint32_t pipe_id, 441 uint32_t queue_id) 442 { 443 struct amdgpu_device *adev = get_amdgpu_device(kgd); 444 uint32_t temp; 445 446 acquire_queue(kgd, pipe_id, queue_id); 447 WREG32(mmCP_HQD_PQ_DOORBELL_CONTROL, 0); 448 449 WREG32(mmCP_HQD_DEQUEUE_REQUEST, reset_type); 450 451 while (true) { 452 temp = RREG32(mmCP_HQD_ACTIVE); 453 if (temp & CP_HQD_ACTIVE__ACTIVE__SHIFT) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Never true. ANDing against a shift is weird. A zero shift is sort of pointless, also.
454 break; 455 if (timeout == 0) { 456 pr_err("kfd: cp queue preemption time out (%dms)\n", 457 temp); 458 release_queue(kgd); 459 return -ETIME; 460 } 461 msleep(20); 462 timeout -= 20; 463 } 464 465 release_queue(kgd); 466 return 0; 467 }
regards, dan carpenter
Dan, thanks for catching that! Will send a fix shortly.
Oded