From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBC37C83003 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:13:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95E212073E for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:13:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="zHFWQgW4" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726530AbgD2INs (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 04:13:48 -0400 Received: from lelv0142.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.249]:43412 "EHLO lelv0142.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726355AbgD2INs (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 04:13:48 -0400 Received: from fllv0034.itg.ti.com ([10.64.40.246]) by lelv0142.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 03T8DUwW007493; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 03:13:30 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1588148010; bh=dIrVm1/0QLViLtaRRfuBbJNZneOip17ijlKOVSjVhIE=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=zHFWQgW4G0g/o/UPa18cLyEWT6fX8erJvXdQ9shIsSQD3OjN6AHmJrUAPuzYjyGqq Cw4rEacVXvIiKujfXiS3XPO6fwVSZhK78MzlKHqqDqSiTyHwI+d5pjr2EMaL2y5ky5 WOKW6l1eMYGIwRIlfpUZqgEHtNrrks6IacCPg9W8= Received: from DFLE105.ent.ti.com (dfle105.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.26]) by fllv0034.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 03T8DUkI011810 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 03:13:30 -0500 Received: from DFLE106.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.27) by DFLE105.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 03:13:30 -0500 Received: from fllv0039.itg.ti.com (10.64.41.19) by DFLE106.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 03:13:29 -0500 Received: from [192.168.2.6] (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by fllv0039.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 03T8DQeH056208; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 03:13:27 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: fix stack usage warning on old gcc To: Arnd Bergmann CC: Andrzej Hajda , Neil Armstrong , David Airlie , Daniel Vetter , Peter Ujfalusi , Laurent Pinchart , Jonas Karlman , Jernej Skrabec , Boris Brezillon , Sebastian Reichel , dri-devel , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: <20200428215408.4111675-1-arnd@arndb.de> <22ee464b-f59a-69a3-b669-f821d567fbf5@ti.com> From: Tomi Valkeinen Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:13:26 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 29/04/2020 11:02, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 9:56 AM Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358768.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358768.c >>> index 1b39e8d37834..6650fe4cfc20 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358768.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/tc358768.c >>> @@ -178,6 +178,8 @@ static int tc358768_clear_error(struct tc358768_priv *priv) >>> >>> static void tc358768_write(struct tc358768_priv *priv, u32 reg, u32 val) >>> { >>> + /* work around https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81715 */ >>> + int tmpval = val; > >> >> tc358768_write is not inline. What is the inline function here? Or is tc358768_write optimized to >> inline by the compiler? > > I missed the lack of an explicit inline tag when looking at the bug. gcc > usually decides which functions to inline on its own, so there is little > difference in practice. Let me know if I should clarify the changelog and > resend it. Ok. I think this is fine. Reviewed-by: Tomi Valkeinen Tomi -- Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki. Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki