linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm: sun8i-ui/vi: Fix layer zpos change/atomic modesetting

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190918152309.j2dbu63jaru6jn2t@core.my.home>
Date:   Wed, 18 Sep 2019 17:23:09 +0200
From:   Ondřej Jirman <megous@...ous.com>
To:     Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: sun8i-ui/vi: Fix layer zpos change/atomic
 modesetting

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 04:17:34PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:03:37AM +0200, megous@...ous.com wrote:
> > From: Ondrej Jirman <megous@...ous.com>
> >
> > There are various issues that this re-work of sun8i_[uv]i_layer_enable
> > function fixes:
> >
> > - Make sure that we re-initialize zpos on reset
> > - Minimize register updates by doing them only when state changes
> > - Fix issue where DE pipe might get disabled even if it is no longer
> >   used by the layer that's currently calling sun8i_ui_layer_enable
> > - .atomic_disable callback is not really needed because .atomic_update
> >   can do the disable too, so drop the duplicate code
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ondrej Jirman <megous@...ous.com>
> 
> It looks like these fixes should be in separate patches. Is there any
> reason it's not the case?

Bullet points just describe the resulting effect/benefits of the change to fix
the pipe control register update issue (see the referenced e-mail).

I can maybe split off the first bullet point into a separate patch. But
I can't guarantee it will not make the original issue worse, because it might
have been hiding the other issue with register updates.

The rest is just a result of the single logical change. It doesn't work
individually, it all has the goal of fixing the issue as a whole.

If I were to split it I would have to actually re-implement .atomic_disable
callback only to remove it in the next patch. I don't see the benefit.

regards,
	o.

> Maxime