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  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:   Thu, 26 Oct 2017 09:43:12 +0530
From:   Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
        Philippe CORNU <philippe.cornu@...com>
Cc:     Nickey Yang <nickey.yang@...k-chips.com>, mark.yao@...k-chips.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, heiko@...ech.de, mark.rutland@....com,
        airlied@...ux.ie, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, hl@...k-chips.com,
        zyw@...k-chips.comg, xbl@...k-chips.com,
        Kristian Kristensen <hoegsberg@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] drm/rockchip/dsi: correct Feedback divider setting

Hi,

On 10/26/2017 06:39 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 03:57:19AM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
>> Archit asked a question about moving to
>> dw-mipi-dsi
> 
> That question made me think though: this approach seems backwards. It
> seems like someone did copy/paste/fork, and then we're asking the
> authors of the original driver to un-fork? It seems like this should
> happen the other way around -- those trying to support a new incarnation
> should have looked to try to abstract the original driver for their
> uses first.

Yes, ST wanted to replicate rockchip's version of the mipi DSI driver and
put it in their folder. If they did that, their KMS driver would have been
the third driver to implement a third instance of the DW DSI controller driver.
Hisilicon and Rockchip being the other 2.

It was either that or attempt at a common DSI DW bridge driver. I suggested
the latter.

The ST guys have abstracted out the PHY pieces, which they knew varied between
rockchip and ST. Ideally, they should have also tried to create a RFC patch to
make the rockchip driver use the bridge too. But they didn't do that, and
the rockchip or hisilicon people were interested in even looking at it,
even after I CC'ed them.

> 
> IIUC, that's exactly what Rockchip did for much of their Analogix eDP
> code -- they reworked the Exynos DP driver to split common Analogix code
> from any Exynos-specific bits.

I get that. I had hoped either ST or Rockchip guys would have done the similar
thing, but no one volunteered.

> 
> And actually, the current stuff in
> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/synopsys/dw-mipi-dsi.c is completely unused. It
> exports some functions, but I see no users of it. Is that intended? Is

The ST kms driver uses it:

drivers/gpu/drm/stm/dw_mipi_dsi-stm.c

> somebody already working on refactoring existing Rockchip code to use
> this?

I don't know. If rockchip isn't interested in doing it, we can check with
Philippe from ST if he can try creating a RFC that converts the rockchip
driver to use the dw-mipi-dsi driver.

Thanks,
Archit

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

Powered by blists - more mailing lists