[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: Protect against HAS_GUC_* returning true values other than one

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 05/07/16 12:50, Dave Gordon wrote:
> On 04/07/16 15:30, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>>
>> At the moment HAS_GUC_UCODE == HAS_GUC == IS_GEN9 ==
>> (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen_mask & BIT(8)), which is true but not one. And
>> module parameters are integers and not booleans so compiler will not
>> normalize the value for us.
>>
>> Quick and easy fix for the GuC loading code and the whole area can
>> be evaluated afterwards.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>> Reported-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> Cc: Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon at intel.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c | 4 ++--
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
>> index d925e2daeb24..72ea5b97e242 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
>> @@ -687,9 +687,9 @@ void intel_guc_init(struct drm_device *dev)
>>
>>       /* A negative value means "use platform default" */
>>       if (i915.enable_guc_loading < 0)
>> -        i915.enable_guc_loading = HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev);
>> +        i915.enable_guc_loading = !!HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev);
>>       if (i915.enable_guc_submission < 0)
>> -        i915.enable_guc_submission = HAS_GUC_SCHED(dev);
>> +        i915.enable_guc_submission = !!HAS_GUC_SCHED(dev);
>>
>>       if (!HAS_GUC_UCODE(dev)) {
>>           fw_path = NULL;
>
> Or we could just fix the IS_GENx() macros:

You mean

commit af1346a0f38fe5b762729a91ed10c7c7f59b76c9
Author: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
Date:   Mon Jul 4 15:50:23 2016 +0100

     drm/i915: Explicitly convert some macros to boolean values

:D

Still, I think being explicit when assigning boolean type macros to 
integer is a good thing to do. Because I thought true is defined as 
non-zero in C. Unless I am behind the times.

Regards,

Tvrtko