linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: sm750fb: avoid conflicting vesafb

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: <20170625150739.GA9422@sudip-laptop>
Date:   Sun, 25 Jun 2017 16:07:39 +0100
From:   Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@...iconmotion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] staging: sm750fb: avoid conflicting vesafb

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 04:27:23PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 02:54:29PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 02:54:51PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 01:43:34PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 09:32:57PM +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > > > From: Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@...iconmotion.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > If vesafb is enabled in the config then /dev/fb0 is created by vesa
> > > > > and this sm750 driver gets fb1, fb2. But we need to be fb0 and fb1 to
> > > > > effectively work with xorg.
> > > > > So if it has been alloted fb1, then try to remove the other fb0.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Teddy Wang <teddy.wang@...iconmotion.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Greg,
> > > > You applied the second patch but not this one. Did I miss any review
> > > > comments from you about this one?
> > > 
> > > All of the other complaints about this patch were not sufficient for me
> > > to justify ignoring it?  Why would I not listen to them?
> > 
> > This patch is doing what all the drm drivers are doing. So you want
> > us to do something completely new rather than following the established
> > practice of a drm driver?
> 
> I despise cargo-cult programming.  You could not answer the "why", so
> why would I accept such a patch?

Did a quick research into "why".
The patch d8801e4df91e ("x86/PCI: Set IORESOURCE_ROM_SHADOW only for the
default VGA device") has started setting IORESOURCE_ROM_SHADOW in flags
for a default VGA device and that is being done only for x86.
And so, we will need that #ifdef to check IORESOURCE_ROM_SHADOW as that
needs to be checked only for a x86 and not for other arch.

--
Regards
Sudip