linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] drm: Use new mode_valid() helpers in connector probe helper

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9b65e0c2-91d0-e036-b78b-7b18e03a506b@synopsys.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 May 2017 06:11:36 +0100
From:   Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
To:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
CC:     Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
        <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>,
        Carlos Palminha <CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] drm: Use new mode_valid() helpers in connector
 probe helper

Hi Laurent,


On 15-05-2017 08:05, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Monday 15 May 2017 08:47:49 Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 02:04:24PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>> On Friday 12 May 2017 17:06:14 Jose Abreu wrote:
>>>> On 12-05-2017 10:35, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday 09 May 2017 18:00:12 Jose Abreu wrote:
>>>>>> +		if (mode->status == MODE_OK)
>>>>>> +			mode->status = 
> drm_mode_validate_connector(connector,
>>>>>>  								   
> mode);
>>>>> I would reverse the arguments order to match the style of the other
>>>>> validation functions.
>>>> Hmm, I think it makes more sense to pass connector first and then
>>>> mode ...
>>> I disagree, as this function validates a mode against a pipeline, the same
>>> way the other validation functions validate a mode against other
>>> parameters, but it's your patch :-)
>> Call it drm_connector_validate_mode, because the first argument is
>> generally the object we operate on :-)
> But the function doesn't validate a mode for a connector, it validates a mode 
> for a complete pipeline...
>

Hmm, but note that in the same function there is
drm_mode_validate_size() and drm_mode_validate_flag() calls,
which take as first argument the mode and then the object to
validate (I hadn't seen this). So, maybe leave it as
drm_mode_validate_connector() as it takes a connector as argument
or change to drm_mode_validate_pipeline() as you said, or even
drm_mode_validate_datapath(), drm_mode_validate_videopath(),
drm_mode_validate_components() ?

Best regards,
Jose Miguel Abreu