[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1488f09b-63b7-4412-ba56-28b1c81528ac@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2025 16:47:25 +0100
From: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>,
Rob Clark <robin.clark@....qualcomm.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Dmitry Baryshkov <lumag@...nel.org>,
Abhinav Kumar <abhinav.kumar@...ux.dev>,
Jessica Zhang <jessica.zhang@....qualcomm.com>,
Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/msm: adreno: fix deferencing ifpc_reglist when not
declared
On 11/17/25 16:02, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 11/17/25 3:51 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> On plaforms with an a7xx GPU not supporting IFPC, the ifpc_reglist
>> if still deferenced in a7xx_patch_pwrup_reglist() which causes
>> a kernel crash:
>> Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000008
>> ...
>> pc : a6xx_hw_init+0x155c/0x1e4c [msm]
>> lr : a6xx_hw_init+0x9a8/0x1e4c [msm]
>> ...
>> Call trace:
>> a6xx_hw_init+0x155c/0x1e4c [msm] (P)
>> msm_gpu_hw_init+0x58/0x88 [msm]
>> adreno_load_gpu+0x94/0x1fc [msm]
>> msm_open+0xe4/0xf4 [msm]
>> drm_file_alloc+0x1a0/0x2e4 [drm]
>> drm_client_init+0x7c/0x104 [drm]
>> drm_fbdev_client_setup+0x94/0xcf0 [drm_client_lib]
>> drm_client_setup+0xb4/0xd8 [drm_client_lib]
>> msm_drm_kms_post_init+0x2c/0x3c [msm]
>> msm_drm_init+0x1a4/0x228 [msm]
>> msm_drm_bind+0x30/0x3c [msm]
>> ...
>>
>> Check the validity of ifpc_reglist before deferencing the table
>> to setup the register values.
>>
>> Fixes: a6a0157cc68e ("drm/msm/a6xx: Enable IFPC on Adreno X1-85")
>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
>> ---
>
> I think it should be fine to skip calling this func altogether
> if !ifpc || !pwrup_reglist
>
> Although ifpc && !pwrup_reglist should probably scream very loud
Sorry but why? pwrup_reglist was introduced way earlier than IFPC.
Why would we be skipping the a7xx_patch_pwrup_reglist() because ifpc_reglist is not declared ???
Neil
>
> Konrad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists