linux-kernel - Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/8] drm/i915: Add more control to wait

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAOw6vbJTaZ9JPn-hstWe_CoqayBhq-n76gdO8sfK4re4JPv0fg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Dec 2017 13:00:51 -0500
From:   Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>
To:     Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Cc:     dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/8] drm/i915: Add more control to wait_for routines

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> Quoting Chris Wilson (2017-12-01 17:55:15)
>> Quoting Sean Paul (2017-12-01 17:48:17)
>> > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > The current wait_for() is a little more complicated nowadays (variable
>> > > W).
>> > >
>> >
>> > Hmm, am I based off the wrong tree? I'm using drm-intel-next.
>>
>> drm-intel-next is what was sent as a PR; drm-intel-next-queued is always
>> current. To be sure CI, doesn't complain about merge conflicts, base on
>> drm-tip.
>

Ahhhh, i forgot about -queued. ok, will rebase.

> Speaking of CI, do you have any instructions on how we might set up a
> test system?

I'm working on an igt test for the property now.

>  Just needs a compatible monitor and some test code?

Yep. For testing, I exposed the property via sysfs and fiddle with it that way.

> Could chamelium or something like that be used as a validator?

You would have to implement the receiver side of HDCP on chamelium in
order for this to work. So, probably not.

Sean

> -Chris