[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a09stVcEr9xBOLbkw7ZtzdZpP_pqE4wYRzBoC70c3h1eA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 10:10:16 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To: "Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz, Foundries" <jorge@...ndries.io>
Cc: Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] optee: simplify i2c access
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 9:08 AM Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz, Foundries
<jorge@...ndries.io> wrote:
>
> On 25/01/21, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> >
> > Storing a bogus i2c_client structure on the stack adds overhead and
> > causes a compile-time warning:
> >
> > drivers/tee/optee/rpc.c:493:6: error: stack frame size of 1056 bytes in function 'optee_handle_rpc' [-Werror,-Wframe-larger-than=]
> > void optee_handle_rpc(struct tee_context *ctx, struct optee_rpc_param *param,
> >
> > Change the implementation of handle_rpc_func_cmd_i2c_transfer() to
> > open-code the i2c_transfer() call, which makes it easier to read
> > and avoids the warning.
> >
> > Fixes: c05210ab9757 ("drivers: optee: allow op-tee to access devices on the i2c bus")
>
> does fixing stack-frame compile warnings need a 'fixes' tag?
The fixes tag only describes which commit introduced the bug, it is irrelevant
what type of bug this is.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists