linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [Intel-gfx] [RFC][PATCH] gpu:drm:i915:intel_detect_pch: back to check devfn instead of check class type

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:42:06 -0400
From:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To:	"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	"airlied@...ux.ie" <airlied@...ux.ie>,
	"intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"qemu-devel@...gnu.org" <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
	"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	"Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@...el.com>,
	"Kay, Allen M" <allen.m.kay@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [Intel-gfx] [RFC][PATCH]
 gpu:drm:i915:intel_detect_pch: back to check devfn instead of check class
 type

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 08:29:56AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 09:08:24PM +0000, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > actually I'm curious whether it's still necessary to __detect__ PCH. Could
> > we assume a 1:1 mapping between GPU and PCH, e.g. BDW already hard
> > code the knowledge:
> > 
> >               } else if (IS_BROADWELL(dev)) {
> >                       dev_priv->pch_type = PCH_LPT;
> >                       dev_priv->pch_id =
> >                               INTEL_PCH_LPT_LP_DEVICE_ID_TYPE;
> >                       DRM_DEBUG_KMS("This is Broadwell, assuming "
> >                                     "LynxPoint LP PCH\n");
> > 
> > Or if there is real usage on non-fixed mapping (not majority), could it be a 
> > better option to have fixed mapping as a fallback instead of leaving as 
> > PCH_NONE? Then even when Qemu doesn't provide a special tweaked PCH,
> > the majority case just works.
> 
> I guess we can do it, at least I haven't seen any strange combinations in
> the wild outside of Intel ...

How big is the QA matrix for this? Would it make sense to just
include the latest hardware (say going two generations back)
and ignore the older one?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/