[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/hwmon: Fix a build error used with clang compiler
Nick Desaulniers
ndesaulniers at google.com
Tue Oct 25 16:46:11 UTC 2022
Start of lore thread for context:
https://lore.kernel.org/intel-gfx/20221024210953.1572998-1-gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com/
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 2:25 AM Andi Shyti <andi.shyti at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ashutosh,
>
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c:115:16: error: result of comparison of constant 18446744073709551615 with expression of type 'typeof (_Generic((field_msk), char: (unsigned char)0, unsigned char: (unsigned char)0, signed char: (unsigned char)0, unsigned short: (unsigned short)0, short: (unsigned short)0, unsigned int: (unsigned int)0, int: (unsigned int)0, unsigned long: (unsigned long)0, long: (unsigned long)0, unsigned long long: (unsigned long long)0, long long: (unsigned long long)0, default: (field_msk)))' (aka 'unsigned int') is always false [-Werror,-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare]
> >
> > What is 18446744073709551615? You may want to limit the length of this line
> > or checkpatch doesn't complain?
>
> yeah! I am not a clang user, and this must be some ugly error
> output. I don't think it makes sense to break it, though.
>
> > > bits_to_set = FIELD_PREP(field_msk, nval);
> > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ./include/linux/bitfield.h:114:3: note: expanded from macro 'FIELD_PREP'
> > > __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_PREP: "); \
> > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ./include/linux/bitfield.h:71:53: note: expanded from macro '__BF_FIELD_CHECK'
> > > BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) > \
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~
> > > ./include/linux/build_bug.h:39:58: note: expanded from macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ./include/linux/compiler_types.h:357:22: note: expanded from macro 'compiletime_assert'
> > > _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ./include/linux/compiler_types.h:345:23: note: expanded from macro '_compiletime_assert'
> > > __compiletime_assert(condition, msg, prefix, suffix)
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > ./include/linux/compiler_types.h:337:9: note: expanded from macro '__compiletime_assert'
> > > if (!(condition)) \
> > >
> > > Fixes: 99f55efb7911 ("drm/i915/hwmon: Power PL1 limit and TDP setting")
> > > Cc: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit at intel.com>
> > > Cc: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta at intel.com>
> > > Cc: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti at linux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c | 12 +++---------
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> > > index 9e9781493025..782a621b1928 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> > > @@ -101,21 +101,16 @@ hwm_field_read_and_scale(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
> > >
> > > static void
> > > hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
> > > - u32 field_msk, int nshift,
> > > - unsigned int scale_factor, long lval)
> > > + int nshift, unsigned int scale_factor, long lval)
> > > {
> > > u32 nval;
> > > - u32 bits_to_clear;
> > > - u32 bits_to_set;
> > >
> > > /* Computation in 64-bits to avoid overflow. Round to nearest. */
> > > nval = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)lval << nshift, scale_factor);
> > >
> > > - bits_to_clear = field_msk;
> > > - bits_to_set = FIELD_PREP(field_msk, nval);
> > > -
> > > hwm_locked_with_pm_intel_uncore_rmw(ddat, rgadr,
> > > - bits_to_clear, bits_to_set);
> > > + PKG_PWR_LIM_1,
> > > + FIELD_PREP(PKG_PWR_LIM_1, nval));
> >
> > I don't want to give up so easily. We might have future uses for the
> > function where we want field_msk to be passed into the function (rather
> > than set inside the function as in this patch).
> >
> > Do we understand what clang is complaining about? And why this compiles
> > with gcc?
>
> Because we are not compiling the builtin functions with gcc but
> gcc has support for them. The FIELD_PREP checks if the first
> parameter is a constant:
>
> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__builtin_constant_p(_mask),
>
> where _mask was our field_mask, but we ignore it. Apparently
> clang doesn't.
So we've been in this code before. I'm having vague memories of
commit 444da3f52407 ("bitfield.h: don't compile-time validate _val in
FIELD_FIT")
But looking at the first __builtin_constant_p check in
__BF_FIELD_CHECK, I'm curious if that might need to be __is_constexpr
rather than __builtin_constant_p; a change like
commit 4d45bc82df66 ("coresight: etm4x: avoid build failure with
unrolled loops")
__builtin_constant_p is evaluated after most optimizations have run;
__is_constexpr must be evaluated by compiler front ends during
semantic analysis.
But reading through the full lore thread, it sounds like Jani has
another suggestion to try instead.
https://lore.kernel.org/intel-gfx/87eduwdllr.fsf@intel.com/
Please re-cc us and our list if that doesn't work out.
>
> If we want to stick to gcc only, then I still think the patch is
> correct for two reasons:
>
> 1. it's cleaner
> 2. we would get on with the job and if one day we will decide
> to suppport builtin functions in gcc as well, we will sleep
> peacefully :)
>
> > Copying llvm at lists.linux.dev too.
>
> maybe llvm folks have a better opinion.
>
> Thanks,
> Andi
>
> > Thanks.
> > --
> > Ashutosh
> >
> >
> > > }
> > >
> > > /*
> > > @@ -406,7 +401,6 @@ hwm_power_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, u32 attr, int chan, long val)
> > > case hwmon_power_max:
> > > hwm_field_scale_and_write(ddat,
> > > hwmon->rg.pkg_rapl_limit,
> > > - PKG_PWR_LIM_1,
> > > hwmon->scl_shift_power,
> > > SF_POWER, val);
> > > return 0;
> > > --
> > > 2.37.1
> > >
>
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list