All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
To: "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/hwmon: Fix a build error used with clang compiler
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 10:16:47 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdmVJn8HvfF9WTnOAc+HsdJ4c1Tdck8E7Caky7AoCq4ZTA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <877d0lxl6s.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:53 AM Dixit, Ashutosh
<ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 09:35:24 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> >
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 5:18 PM Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Ashutosh,
> > >
> > > > But I'd wait to hear from clang/llvm folks first.
> > >
> > > Yeah! Looking forward to getting some ideas :)
> >
> > Gwan-gyeong, which tree and set of configs are necessary to reproduce
> > the observed warning?
> >
> > Warnings are treated as errors, so I don't want this breaking our CI.
>
> The following or equivalent should do it:
>
> git clone https://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/drm/drm-tip
> git checkout drm-tip
>
> Kernel config:
> CONFIG_DRM_I915=m
> CONFIG_HWMON=y
>
> Files:
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c/.h
>
> Thanks for taking a look.

Thanks, I can repro now.

I haven't detangled the macro soup, but I noticed:

1. FIELD_PREP is defined in include/linux/bitfield.h which has the
following comment:
 18  * Mask must be a compilation time constant.

2. hwm_field_scale_and_write only has one callsite.

The following patch works:

```
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
index 9e9781493025..6ac29d90b92a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ 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,
+                         int nshift,
                          unsigned int scale_factor, long lval)
 {
        u32 nval;
@@ -111,8 +111,8 @@ hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata
*ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
        /* 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);
+       bits_to_clear = PKG_PWR_LIM_1;
+       bits_to_set = FIELD_PREP(PKG_PWR_LIM_1, nval);

        hwm_locked_with_pm_intel_uncore_rmw(ddat, rgadr,
                                            bits_to_clear, bits_to_set);
@@ -406,7 +406,6 @@ 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;
```
Though I'm not sure if you're planning to add further callsites of
hwm_field_scale_and_write with different field_masks?

Alternatively, (without the above diff),

```
diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h
index c9be1657f03d..6f40f12bcf89 100644
--- a/include/linux/bitfield.h
+++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
 #define _LINUX_BITFIELD_H

 #include <linux/build_bug.h>
+#include <linux/const.h>
 #include <asm/byteorder.h>

 /*
@@ -62,7 +63,7 @@

 #define __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, _val, _pfx)                      \
        ({                                                              \
-               BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__builtin_constant_p(_mask),          \
+               BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__is_constexpr(_mask),                \
                                 _pfx "mask is not constant");          \
                BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG((_mask) == 0, _pfx "mask is zero");    \
                BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__builtin_constant_p(_val) ?           \
```
will produce:
error: call to __compiletime_assert_407 declared with 'error'
attribute: FIELD_PREP: mask is not constant

I haven't tested if that change is also feasible (on top of fixing
this specific instance), but I think it might help avoid more of these
subtleties wrt. __builtin_constant_p that depende heavily on compiler,
compiler version, optimization level.
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
To: "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
Cc: Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun@intel.com>,
	anshuman.gupta@intel.com,  intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	llvm@lists.linux.dev,  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/hwmon: Fix a build error used with clang compiler
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 10:16:47 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdmVJn8HvfF9WTnOAc+HsdJ4c1Tdck8E7Caky7AoCq4ZTA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <877d0lxl6s.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:53 AM Dixit, Ashutosh
<ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 09:35:24 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> >
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 5:18 PM Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Ashutosh,
> > >
> > > > But I'd wait to hear from clang/llvm folks first.
> > >
> > > Yeah! Looking forward to getting some ideas :)
> >
> > Gwan-gyeong, which tree and set of configs are necessary to reproduce
> > the observed warning?
> >
> > Warnings are treated as errors, so I don't want this breaking our CI.
>
> The following or equivalent should do it:
>
> git clone https://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/drm/drm-tip
> git checkout drm-tip
>
> Kernel config:
> CONFIG_DRM_I915=m
> CONFIG_HWMON=y
>
> Files:
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c/.h
>
> Thanks for taking a look.

Thanks, I can repro now.

I haven't detangled the macro soup, but I noticed:

1. FIELD_PREP is defined in include/linux/bitfield.h which has the
following comment:
 18  * Mask must be a compilation time constant.

2. hwm_field_scale_and_write only has one callsite.

The following patch works:

```
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
index 9e9781493025..6ac29d90b92a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ 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,
+                         int nshift,
                          unsigned int scale_factor, long lval)
 {
        u32 nval;
@@ -111,8 +111,8 @@ hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata
*ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
        /* 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);
+       bits_to_clear = PKG_PWR_LIM_1;
+       bits_to_set = FIELD_PREP(PKG_PWR_LIM_1, nval);

        hwm_locked_with_pm_intel_uncore_rmw(ddat, rgadr,
                                            bits_to_clear, bits_to_set);
@@ -406,7 +406,6 @@ 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;
```
Though I'm not sure if you're planning to add further callsites of
hwm_field_scale_and_write with different field_masks?

Alternatively, (without the above diff),

```
diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h
index c9be1657f03d..6f40f12bcf89 100644
--- a/include/linux/bitfield.h
+++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
 #define _LINUX_BITFIELD_H

 #include <linux/build_bug.h>
+#include <linux/const.h>
 #include <asm/byteorder.h>

 /*
@@ -62,7 +63,7 @@

 #define __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, _val, _pfx)                      \
        ({                                                              \
-               BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__builtin_constant_p(_mask),          \
+               BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__is_constexpr(_mask),                \
                                 _pfx "mask is not constant");          \
                BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG((_mask) == 0, _pfx "mask is zero");    \
                BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__builtin_constant_p(_val) ?           \
```
will produce:
error: call to __compiletime_assert_407 declared with 'error'
attribute: FIELD_PREP: mask is not constant

I haven't tested if that change is also feasible (on top of fixing
this specific instance), but I think it might help avoid more of these
subtleties wrt. __builtin_constant_p that depende heavily on compiler,
compiler version, optimization level.
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers

  reply	other threads:[~2022-10-27 17:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-10-24 21:09 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/hwmon: Fix a build error used with clang compiler Gwan-gyeong Mun
2022-10-25  1:34 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for " Patchwork
2022-10-25  1:57 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2022-10-25  3:14 ` [PATCH] " Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-10-25  3:14   ` [Intel-gfx] " Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-10-25  9:25   ` Andi Shyti
2022-10-25  9:25     ` Andi Shyti
2022-10-25 16:46     ` Nick Desaulniers
2022-10-25 16:46       ` [Intel-gfx] " Nick Desaulniers
2022-10-25 18:45     ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-10-25 18:45       ` [Intel-gfx] " Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-10-26  0:18       ` Andi Shyti
2022-10-26  0:18         ` [Intel-gfx] " Andi Shyti
2022-10-27 16:35         ` Nick Desaulniers
2022-10-27 16:35           ` [Intel-gfx] " Nick Desaulniers
2022-10-27 16:53           ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-10-27 16:53             ` [Intel-gfx] " Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-10-27 17:16             ` Nick Desaulniers [this message]
2022-10-27 17:16               ` Nick Desaulniers
2022-10-27 18:32               ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-10-27 18:32                 ` [Intel-gfx] " Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-10-28  6:26                 ` Gwan-gyeong Mun
2022-10-28  6:26                   ` [Intel-gfx] " Gwan-gyeong Mun
2022-10-28  6:43                 ` Gwan-gyeong Mun
2022-10-28  6:43                   ` Gwan-gyeong Mun
2022-10-28  8:46                   ` Jani Nikula
2022-10-28  8:46                     ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula
2022-11-02  6:32                     ` Joonas Lahtinen
2022-11-02 10:41                       ` Gwan-gyeong Mun
2022-11-02 10:41                         ` Gwan-gyeong Mun
2022-10-25  9:15 ` Andi Shyti
2022-10-25 14:27 ` Jani Nikula
2022-10-25 14:30   ` Jani Nikula
2022-10-25 18:46     ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-10-27 17:54 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: failure for drm/i915/hwmon: Fix a build error used with clang compiler (rev2) Patchwork
2022-10-28  6:30 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: failure for drm/i915/hwmon: Fix a build error used with clang compiler (rev3) Patchwork
2022-10-28  6:48 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: failure for drm/i915/hwmon: Fix a build error used with clang compiler (rev4) Patchwork
2022-10-29  4:42 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/hwmon: Fix a build error used with clang compiler Gwan-gyeong Mun
2022-10-31  5:19   ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-10-31  6:37     ` Gwan-gyeong Mun
2022-10-31 17:31       ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-11-01 10:35         ` Jani Nikula
2022-11-02  7:12   ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2022-11-02  8:50     ` Jani Nikula
2022-10-29  5:00 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915/hwmon: Fix a build error used with clang compiler (rev5) Patchwork
2022-10-29  5:32 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2022-10-29 15:32 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAKwvOdmVJn8HvfF9WTnOAc+HsdJ4c1Tdck8E7Caky7AoCq4ZTA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=ndesaulniers@google.com \
    --cc=ashutosh.dixit@intel.com \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.