ARM: vexpress: spc: fix uniprocessor initialization
Subsystems (4)
PATCH 1/1 ARM: vexpress: spc: fix uniprocessor initialization
From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
When CONFIG_SMP is disabled, topology_physical_package_id() returns -1 and gcc notices undefined behavior:
arch/arm/mach-versatile/spc.c: In function 've_spc_clk_init':arch/arm/mach-versatile/spc.c:583:21: error: array subscript -1 is below array bounds of 'bool[2]' {aka '_Bool[2]'} [-Werror=array-bounds]
583 | if (init_opp_table[cluster])
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~
arch/arm/mach-versatile/spc.c:556:7: note: while referencing 'init_opp_table'
556 | bool init_opp_table[MAX_CLUSTERS] = { false };
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~It's not clear to me what the correct behavior should be, but it seems safe to just not continue with the initialization.
--- arch/arm/mach-versatile/spc.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
arch/arm/mach-versatile/spc.c +1 -1
@@ -580,7 +580,7 @@ static int __init ve_spc_clk_init(void) } cluster =topology_physical_package_id (cpu_dev->id); -if (init_opp_table[cluster]) +if (cluster <0 || init_opp_table[cluster])continue ;if (ve_init_opp_table (cpu_dev))
Signature · 1 line
2.29.2
Hi Arnd,
Sorry for the delay
Quoted 8 lines · Arnd Bergmann
From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
When
CONFIG_SMPis disabled,topology_physical_package_id()returns -1 and gcc notices undefined behavior:
arch/arm/mach-versatile/spc.c: In function 've_spc_clk_init':arch/arm/mach-versatile/spc.c:583:21: error: array subscript -1 is below array bounds of 'bool[2]' {aka '_Bool[2]'} [-Werror=array-bounds]
583 | if (init_opp_table[cluster])
Quoted 8 lines
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~ arch/arm/mach-versatile/spc.c:556:7: note: while referencing 'init_opp_table' 556 | bool init_opp_table[MAX_CLUSTERS] = { false }; | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~It's not clear to me what the correct behavior should be, but it seems safe to just not continue with the initialization.
I don't have any other patches for vexpress platform or driver support. Can you apply this directly ? Assuming that,
--
Regards,
Sudeep