[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241211091147.717e53a4@foz.lan>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 09:14:53 +0100
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <maurochehab@...il.com>
To: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki"
<rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Robert Moore
<robert.moore@...el.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>, Dan Carpenter
<dan.carpenter@...aro.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
acpica-devel@...ts.linux.dev, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] media: ipu-bridge: Fix warning when !ACPI
Em Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:55:58 +0000
Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org> escreveu:
> One of the quirks that we introduced to build with !ACPI && COMPILE_TEST
> throws the following smatch warning:
> drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu-bridge.c:752 ipu_bridge_ivsc_is_ready() warn: iterator 'i' not incremented
>
> Fix it by replacing the condition.
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202411221147.N6w23gDo-lkp@intel.com/
> Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/202411221147.N6w23gDo-lkp@intel.com/
> Signed-off-by: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org>
> ---
> drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu-bridge.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu-bridge.c b/drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu-bridge.c
> index a0e9a71580b5..be82bc3e27d0 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu-bridge.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/pci/intel/ipu-bridge.c
> @@ -774,7 +774,7 @@ static int ipu_bridge_ivsc_is_ready(void)
>
> for_each_acpi_dev_match(sensor_adev, cfg->hid, NULL, -1) {
> #else
> - while (true) {
> + while (false) {
> sensor_adev = NULL;
> #endif
The better would be to just remove all #if and handle ACPI compatibility
with COMPILE_TEST inside acpi headers.
Besides that, t sounds that patch 2 makes this hack unneeded, as you added
a false check at the for macro:
#define for_each_acpi_dev_match(adev, hid, uid, hrv) \
for (adev = NULL; false && (hid) && (uid) && (hrv);)
Please place only one set of subsystem maintainers at the To: line,
directing to the one(s) you expect to merge this series.
In this particular case, the one to be added should be the ACPI
maintainers.
Regards,
Mauro
Powered by blists - more mailing lists