| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
This resolves the dereference null return value warning
reported by Coverity.
Signed-off-by: Tim Huang <tim.huang@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Jesse Zhang <jesse.zhang@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
Drop redundant setting code for pcie.lanes. It overwrites
the value get from pptable
Signed-off-by: Ma Jun <Jun.Ma2@amd.com>
Acked-by: Yang Wang<kevinyang.wang@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
Ther are many pointers assigned first, which need not to be initialized, so
remove the NULL assignment.
Reviewed-by: Evan Quan <evan.quan@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Ruan Jinjie <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
Set up all the parameters required for SMU fan control if supported.
Bug: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=201539
Acked-by: Evan Quan <evan.quan@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
phm_samu_clock_voltage_dependency_table
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having
a dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code
should always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct phm_samu_clock_voltage_dependency_table, instead of a one-element array,
and use the struct_size() helper to calculate the size for the allocation.
Also, save some heap space as the original code is multiplying
table->numEntries by sizeof(struct phm_samu_clock_voltage_dependency_table)
when it should have been multiplied it by
sizeof(struct phm_samu_clock_voltage_dependency_record) instead.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9-rc1/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5f7c5d3a.ryM4GmZr3e0JeZy+%25lkp@intel.com/
Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
phm_cac_leakage_table
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having
a dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code
should always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct phm_cac_leakage_table, instead of a one-element array,
and use the struct_size() helper to calculate the size for the allocation.
Also, save some heap space as the original code is multiplying
table->ucNumEntries by sizeof(struct phm_cac_leakage_table) when it
should have been multiplied it by sizeof(struct phm_cac_leakage_record)
instead.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9-rc1/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5f7c5d38.iT%2FQTjN+659XUDo5%25lkp@intel.com/
Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
phm_vce_clock_voltage_dependency_table
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having
a dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code
should always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct phm_vce_clock_voltage_dependency_table, instead of a one-element array,
and use the struct_size() helper to calculate the size for the allocation.
Also, save some heap space as the original code is multiplying
table->numEntries by sizeof(struct phm_vce_clock_voltage_dependency_table)
when it should have multiplied it by sizeof(struct phm_vce_clock_voltage_dependency_record)
instead.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9-rc1/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5f7c5d35.pJToGs3H9khZK6ws%25lkp@intel.com/
Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
phm_phase_shedding_limits_table
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having
a dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code
should always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct phm_phase_shedding_limits_table, instead of a one-element array,
and use the struct_size() helper to calculate the size for the allocation.
Also, save some heap space as the original code is multiplying
ptable->ucNumEntries by sizeof(struct phm_phase_shedding_limits_table)
when it should have multiplied it by sizeof(struct phm_phase_shedding_limits_record)
instead.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9-rc1/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5f7c5d36.6PStUZp2HRxAz7IM%25lkp@intel.com/
Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
phm_acp_clock_voltage_dependency_table
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having
a dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code
should always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct phm_acp_clock_voltage_dependency_table, instead of a one-element
array, and use the struct_size() helper to calculate the size for the
allocation.
Also, save some heap space as the original code is multiplying
table->numEntries by sizeof(struct phm_acp_clock_voltage_dependency_table)
when it should have multiplied it by sizeof(phm_acp_clock_voltage_dependency_record)
instead.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9-rc1/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5f7c5d3c.TyfOhg%2FA6JycL6ZN%25lkp@intel.com/
Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
phm_uvd_clock_voltage_dependency_table
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having
a dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code
should always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct phm_uvd_clock_voltage_dependency_table, instead of a one-element
array, and use the struct_size() helper to calculate the size for the
allocation.
Also, save some heap space as the original code is multiplying
table->numEntries by sizeof(struct phm_uvd_clock_voltage_dependency_table)
when it should have multiplied it by sizeof(phm_uvd_clock_voltage_dependency_record)
instead.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9-rc1/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5f7c433e.pXkC6KsN6HN%2FLdhj%25lkp@intel.com/
Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
phm_clock_array
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having
a dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code
should always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct phm_clock_array, instead of a one-element array, and use the
struct_size() helper to calculate the size for the allocation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9-rc1/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5f7c433f.ZyMD+YUIVAwiHGVe%25lkp@intel.com/
Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
There is a regular need in the kernel to provide a way to declare having
a dynamically sized set of trailing elements in a structure. Kernel code
should always use “flexible array members”[1] for these cases. The older
style of one-element or zero-length arrays should no longer be used[2].
Refactor the code according to the use of a flexible-array member in
struct phm_clock_voltage_dependency_table, instead of a one-element
array, and use the struct_size() helper to calculate the size for the
allocation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_array_member
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9-rc1/process/deprecated.html#zero-length-and-one-element-arrays
Build-tested-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5f7c295c.8iqp1Ifc6oiVDq%2F%2F%25lkp@intel.com/
Acked-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavoars@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
|
The target is to provide a clear entry point(for power routines).
Also this can help to maintain a clear view about the frameworks
used on different ASICs. Hopefully all these can make power part
more friendly to play with.
Signed-off-by: Evan Quan <evan.quan@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
|
