+ Manish,
On 10. 03. 20 12:33, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Quanyang Wang <[email protected]>
>
> When assigning value to a pointer as below:
>
> itapdly = (u32 [MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS400 + 1]) {0x0, 0x15, 0x15...0x0};
>
> then using gcc 9.2.0 with -O2 to compile, the pointer itapdly will point to
> the stack of the function, and the values in this area is not initialized.
> The disassemble code is as below:
>
> ffffffc010a389b8: 940089ac bl ffffffc010a5b068
> <of_device_is_compatible>
> ffffffc010a389bc: 34001100 cbz w0, ffffffc010a38bdc
> <arasan_dt_parse_tap_delays+0x264>
> itapdly = (u32 [MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS400 + 1]) ZYNQMP_ITAP_DELAYS;
> otapdly = (u32 [MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS400 + 1]) ZYNQMP_OTAP_DELAYS;
> ffffffc010a389c0: 9101d3f4 add x20, sp, #0x74
> itapdly = (u32 [MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS400 + 1]) ZYNQMP_ITAP_DELAYS;
> ffffffc010a389c4: 910123f5 add x21, sp, #0x48
> int ret = of_property_read_variable_u32_array(np, propname,
> out_values,
>
> This results that the pointer itapdly is not the address of the array
> ZYNQMP_ITAP_DELAYS but a stack address which contains random values.
>
> So use an array of integers to avoid the over optimization of the new
> compiler.
>
> Signed-off-by: Quanyang Wang <[email protected]>
> --
> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c | 25 +++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> ---
> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
This look bit weird.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c
> b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c
> index bc9ca6ae20ce..34dcded79b78 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-of-arasan.c
> @@ -52,15 +52,15 @@
> #define SDHCI_ITAPDLY_ENABLE 0x100
> #define SDHCI_OTAPDLY_ENABLE 0x40
>
> -#define ZYNQMP_ITAP_DELAYS {0x0, 0x15, 0x15, 0x0, 0x15, 0x0,\
> - 0x0, 0x3D, 0x12, 0x0, 0x0}
> -#define ZYNQMP_OTAP_DELAYS {0x0, 0x5, 0x6, 0x0, 0x5, 0x3,\
> - 0x3, 0x4, 0x6, 0x3, 0x0}
> +static u32 zynqmp_itap_delays[MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS400+1] = {0x0, 0x15, 0x15,
> 0x0,
missing spaces around +
> + 0x15, 0x0, 0x0, 0x3D, 0x12, 0x0, 0x0};
> +static u32 zynqmp_otap_delays[MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS400+1] = {0x0, 0x5, 0x6, 0x0,
ditto.
> + 0x5, 0x3, 0x3, 0x4, 0x6, 0x3, 0x0};
>
> -#define VERSAL_ITAP_DELAYS {0x0, 0x2C, 0x2C, 0x0, 0x2C, 0x0,\
> - 0x0, 0x36, 0x1E, 0x0, 0x0}
> -#define VERSAL_OTAP_DELAYS {0x0, 0x5, 0x4, 0x0, 0x4, 0x3,\
> - 0x2, 0x3, 0x5, 0x2, 0x0}
> +static u32 versal_itap_delays[MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS400 + 1] = {0x0, 0x2C, 0x2C,
> + 0x0, 0x2C, 0x0, 0x0, 0x36, 0x1E, 0x0, 0x0};
> +static u32 versal_otap_delays[MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS400 + 1] = {0x0, 0x5, 0x4,
> + 0x0, 0x4, 0x3, 0x2, 0x3, 0x5, 0x2, 0x0};
>
> #define MMC_BANK2 0x2
>
> @@ -995,15 +995,15 @@ static void arasan_dt_parse_tap_delays(struct device
> *dev)
> int i;
>
> if (of_device_is_compatible(pdev->dev.of_node, "xlnx,zynqmp-8.9a")) {
> - itapdly = (u32 [MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS400 + 1]) ZYNQMP_ITAP_DELAYS;
> - otapdly = (u32 [MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS400 + 1]) ZYNQMP_OTAP_DELAYS;
> + itapdly = zynqmp_itap_delays;
> + otapdly = zynqmp_otap_delays;
> if (sdhci_arasan->mio_bank == MMC_BANK2) {
> otapdly[MMC_TIMING_UHS_SDR104] = 0x2;
> otapdly[MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS200] = 0x2;
> }
> } else {
> - itapdly = (u32 [MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS400 + 1]) VERSAL_ITAP_DELAYS;
> - otapdly = (u32 [MMC_TIMING_MMC_HS400 + 1]) VERSAL_OTAP_DELAYS;
> + itapdly = versal_itap_delays;
> + otapdly = versal_otap_delays;
> }
>
> arasan_dt_read_tap_delay(dev, itapdly, MMC_TIMING_SD_HS,
>
Manish: Can you please take a look?
I can't see any issue with this.
Thanks,
Michal
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#8452):
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/linux-yocto/message/8452
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/71854797/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/linux-yocto/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
