drivers/spi/spi-aspeed-smc.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
aspeed_spi_ast2600_optimized_timing() declared its buffer argument as a
variable-length array parameter (u8 buf[rows][cols]), which causes a
sparse warning. Replace the VLA parameter with a plain u8 * and compute
the 2-D index manually. The corresponding call site is also updated.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202605180441.uD3toFRJ-lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Chin-Ting Kuo <chin-ting_kuo@aspeedtech.com>
---
drivers/spi/spi-aspeed-smc.c | 7 +++----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-aspeed-smc.c b/drivers/spi/spi-aspeed-smc.c
index 808659a1f460..c5275700de3d 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-aspeed-smc.c
+++ b/drivers/spi/spi-aspeed-smc.c
@@ -1467,8 +1467,7 @@ static int aspeed_spi_do_calibration(struct aspeed_spi_chip *chip)
* must contains the highest number of consecutive "pass"
* results and not span across multiple rows.
*/
-static u32 aspeed_spi_ast2600_optimized_timing(u32 rows, u32 cols,
- u8 buf[rows][cols])
+static u32 aspeed_spi_ast2600_optimized_timing(u32 rows, u32 cols, u8 *buf)
{
int r = 0, c = 0;
int max = 0;
@@ -1478,7 +1477,7 @@ static u32 aspeed_spi_ast2600_optimized_timing(u32 rows, u32 cols,
for (j = 0; j < cols;) {
int k = j;
- while (k < cols && buf[i][k])
+ while (k < cols && buf[i * cols + k])
k++;
if (k - j > max) {
@@ -1541,7 +1540,7 @@ static int aspeed_spi_ast2600_calibrate(struct aspeed_spi_chip *chip, u32 hdiv,
}
}
- calib_point = aspeed_spi_ast2600_optimized_timing(6, 17, calib_res);
+ calib_point = aspeed_spi_ast2600_optimized_timing(6, 17, &calib_res[0][0]);
/* No good setting for this frequency */
if (calib_point == 0)
return -1;
--
2.34.1
On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 05:57:08PM +0800, Chin-Ting Kuo wrote: > - while (k < cols && buf[i][k]) > + while (k < cols && buf[i * cols + k]) This really needs () to make it clear what's going on; the precedence is well defined but not everyone is going to know that off the top of their head.
On Tue, 19 May 2026 12:03:51 +0100 Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 05:57:08PM +0800, Chin-Ting Kuo wrote: > > > - while (k < cols && buf[i][k]) > > + while (k < cols && buf[i * cols + k]) > > This really needs () to make it clear what's going on; the precedence is > well defined but not everyone is going to know that off the top of their > head. Come on, it's multiply and add - everyone is going to get that right. -- David
On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 06:13:48PM +0100, David Laight wrote: > Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 05:57:08PM +0800, Chin-Ting Kuo wrote: > > > - while (k < cols && buf[i][k]) > > > + while (k < cols && buf[i * cols + k]) > > This really needs () to make it clear what's going on; the precedence is > > well defined but not everyone is going to know that off the top of their > > head. > Come on, it's multiply and add - everyone is going to get that right. No, I have to stop and think. It's not just "what is the rule" it's also "is that the same rule whoever wrote the code thought there was" - implicit precedence is the sort of thing that flags up as an alarm bell when scanning through code.
On 5/18/26 11:57, Chin-Ting Kuo wrote:
> aspeed_spi_ast2600_optimized_timing() declared its buffer argument as a
> variable-length array parameter (u8 buf[rows][cols]), which causes a
> sparse warning. Replace the VLA parameter with a plain u8 * and compute
> the 2-D index manually. The corresponding call site is also updated.
>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202605180441.uD3toFRJ-lkp@intel.com/
> Signed-off-by: Chin-Ting Kuo <chin-ting_kuo@aspeedtech.com>
> ---
> drivers/spi/spi-aspeed-smc.c | 7 +++----
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-aspeed-smc.c b/drivers/spi/spi-aspeed-smc.c
> index 808659a1f460..c5275700de3d 100644
> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-aspeed-smc.c
> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-aspeed-smc.c
> @@ -1467,8 +1467,7 @@ static int aspeed_spi_do_calibration(struct aspeed_spi_chip *chip)
> * must contains the highest number of consecutive "pass"
> * results and not span across multiple rows.
> */
> -static u32 aspeed_spi_ast2600_optimized_timing(u32 rows, u32 cols,
> - u8 buf[rows][cols])
> +static u32 aspeed_spi_ast2600_optimized_timing(u32 rows, u32 cols, u8 *buf)
> {
> int r = 0, c = 0;
> int max = 0;
> @@ -1478,7 +1477,7 @@ static u32 aspeed_spi_ast2600_optimized_timing(u32 rows, u32 cols,
> for (j = 0; j < cols;) {
> int k = j;
>
> - while (k < cols && buf[i][k])
> + while (k < cols && buf[i * cols + k])
> k++;
>
> if (k - j > max) {
> @@ -1541,7 +1540,7 @@ static int aspeed_spi_ast2600_calibrate(struct aspeed_spi_chip *chip, u32 hdiv,
> }
> }
>
> - calib_point = aspeed_spi_ast2600_optimized_timing(6, 17, calib_res);
> + calib_point = aspeed_spi_ast2600_optimized_timing(6, 17, &calib_res[0][0]);
> /* No good setting for this frequency */
> if (calib_point == 0)
> return -1;
Reviewed-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@kaod.org>
Thanks,
C.
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.