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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 09:24:11 +0530 From: Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org> To: zain wang <wzz@...k-chips.com>, Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>, Inki Dae <inki.dae@...sung.com>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie> Cc: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>, Mika Kahola <mika.kahola@...el.com>, Stéphane Marchesin <marcheu@...omium.org>, Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>, dianders@...omium.org, Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>, Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/bridge: analogix: Don't return -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in PSR functions Hi, On 12/02/2016 08:02 AM, zain wang wrote: > We will ignored PSR setting if panel not support it. So, in this case, we should > return from analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr() without any error code. > Let's retrun 0 instead of -EINVAL when panel not support PSR in > analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr(). > > Signed-off-by: zain wang <wzz@...k-chips.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c > index 6e0447f..0cb3695 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/analogix/analogix_dp_core.c > @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ int analogix_dp_enable_psr(struct device *dev) > struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc; > > if (!dp->psr_support) > - return -EINVAL; > + return 0; Looking at the rockchip analogix dp code, in analogix_dp_psr_set, the worker that calls analogix_dp_enable/disable_psr isn't even if psr isn't enabled. So, the bridge funcs shouldn't be called in the first place. I think the error handling is fine to have here. > > /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ > memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); > @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ int analogix_dp_disable_psr(struct device *dev) > struct edp_vsc_psr psr_vsc; > > if (!dp->psr_support) > - return -EINVAL; > + return 0; > > /* Prepare VSC packet as per EDP 1.4 spec, Table 6.9 */ > memset(&psr_vsc, 0, sizeof(psr_vsc)); > @@ -878,6 +878,8 @@ static void analogix_dp_commit(struct analogix_dp_device *dp) > dp->psr_support = analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr(dp); > if (dp->psr_support) > analogix_dp_enable_sink_psr(dp); > + else > + dev_warn(dp->dev, "Sink not support PSR\n"); This doesn't seem beneficial either. There seems to be a debug print already in analogix_dp_detect_sink_psr which reports PSR related info. Archit > } > > /* > -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists