| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <202304202141.JYCKBVOQ-lkp@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 22:13:22 +0800
From: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
To: Nylon Chen <nylon.chen@...ive.com>, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
conor@...nel.org, emil.renner.berthing@...onical.com,
geert+renesas@...der.be, heiko@...ech.de,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, palmer@...belt.com,
paul.walmsley@...ive.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
thierry.reding@...il.com, u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev, nylon.chen@...ive.com,
nylon7717@...il.com, zong.li@...ive.com, greentime.hu@...ive.com,
vincent.chen@...ive.com, Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] pwm: sifive: change the PWM controlled LED
algorithm
Hi Nylon,
kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
[auto build test WARNING on robh/for-next]
[also build test WARNING on thierry-reding-pwm/for-next rockchip/for-next linus/master v6.3-rc7 next-20230419]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Nylon-Chen/riscv-dts-sifive-unleashed-unmatched-Remove-PWM-controlled-LED-s-active-low-properties/20230420-173619
base: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/robh/linux.git for-next
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230420093457.18936-3-nylon.chen%40sifive.com
patch subject: [PATCH v3 2/2] pwm: sifive: change the PWM controlled LED algorithm
config: m68k-allyesconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230420/202304202141.JYCKBVOQ-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: m68k-linux-gcc (GCC) 12.1.0
reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross
chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross
# https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commit/f2d706bf61190a45a8f90f1f455bc943d4ac7b6e
git remote add linux-review https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux
git fetch --no-tags linux-review Nylon-Chen/riscv-dts-sifive-unleashed-unmatched-Remove-PWM-controlled-LED-s-active-low-properties/20230420-173619
git checkout f2d706bf61190a45a8f90f1f455bc943d4ac7b6e
# save the config file
mkdir build_dir && cp config build_dir/.config
COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=gcc-12.1.0 make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=m68k olddefconfig
COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=gcc-12.1.0 make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=m68k SHELL=/bin/bash drivers/
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
| Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202304202141.JYCKBVOQ-lkp@intel.com/
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
In file included from include/linux/kernel.h:26,
from include/linux/clk.h:13,
from drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c:14:
drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c: In function 'pwm_sifive_apply':
include/linux/minmax.h:20:35: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
20 | (!!(sizeof((typeof(x) *)1 == (typeof(y) *)1)))
| ^~
include/linux/minmax.h:26:18: note: in expansion of macro '__typecheck'
26 | (__typecheck(x, y) && __no_side_effects(x, y))
| ^~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/minmax.h:36:31: note: in expansion of macro '__safe_cmp'
36 | __builtin_choose_expr(__safe_cmp(x, y), \
| ^~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/minmax.h:74:25: note: in expansion of macro '__careful_cmp'
74 | #define max(x, y) __careful_cmp(x, y, >)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c:157:18: note: in expansion of macro 'max'
157 | period = max(state->period, ddata->approx_period);
| ^~~
>> drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c:135:34: warning: variable 'period' set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable]
135 | unsigned int duty_cycle, period;
| ^~~~~~
vim +/period +135 drivers/pwm/pwm-sifive.c
129
130 static int pwm_sifive_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
131 const struct pwm_state *state)
132 {
133 struct pwm_sifive_ddata *ddata = pwm_sifive_chip_to_ddata(chip);
134 struct pwm_state cur_state;
> 135 unsigned int duty_cycle, period;
136 unsigned long long num;
137 bool enabled;
138 int ret = 0;
139 u32 frac;
140
141 if (state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_NORMAL && state->polarity != PWM_POLARITY_INVERSED)
142 return -EINVAL;
143
144 cur_state = pwm->state;
145 enabled = cur_state.enabled;
146
147 duty_cycle = state->duty_cycle;
148 if (!state->enabled)
149 duty_cycle = 0;
150
151 /*
152 * The problem of output producing mixed setting as mentioned at top,
153 * occurs here. To minimize the window for this problem, we are
154 * calculating the register values first and then writing them
155 * consecutively
156 */
157 period = max(state->period, ddata->approx_period);
158 num = (u64)duty_cycle * (1U << PWM_SIFIVE_CMPWIDTH);
159 frac = DIV64_U64_ROUND_CLOSEST(num, state->period);
160 frac = min(frac, (1U << PWM_SIFIVE_CMPWIDTH) - 1);
161 /* The hardware cannot generate a 100% duty cycle */
162 frac = (1U << PWM_SIFIVE_CMPWIDTH) - 1 - frac;
163
164
165 mutex_lock(&ddata->lock);
166 if (state->period != ddata->approx_period) {
167 /*
168 * Don't let a 2nd user change the period underneath the 1st user.
169 * However if ddate->approx_period == 0 this is the first time we set
170 * any period, so let whoever gets here first set the period so other
171 * users who agree on the period won't fail.
172 */
173 if (ddata->user_count != 1 && ddata->approx_period) {
174 mutex_unlock(&ddata->lock);
175 return -EBUSY;
176 }
177 ddata->approx_period = state->period;
178 pwm_sifive_update_clock(ddata, clk_get_rate(ddata->clk));
179 }
180 mutex_unlock(&ddata->lock);
181
182 /*
183 * If the PWM is enabled the clk is already on. So only enable it
184 * conditionally to have it on exactly once afterwards independent of
185 * the PWM state.
186 */
187 if (!enabled) {
188 ret = clk_enable(ddata->clk);
189 if (ret) {
190 dev_err(ddata->chip.dev, "Enable clk failed\n");
191 return ret;
192 }
193 }
194
195 writel(frac, ddata->regs + PWM_SIFIVE_PWMCMP(pwm->hwpwm));
196
197 if (!state->enabled)
198 clk_disable(ddata->clk);
199
200 return 0;
201 }
202
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests
Powered by blists - more mailing lists