linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] drm: msm: a6xx: fix gpu failure after system resume

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: <CAD=FV=Vdg36wBJiYM9bxGy-8hjxEf85aYAGuqR=Xh_oM0pLt0g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 10:39:07 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@...eaurora.org>,
        freedreno <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        dri-devel@...edesktop.org,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm: msm: a6xx: fix gpu failure after system resume

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 7:46 AM Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 08:04:18PM +0530, Akhil P Oommen wrote:
> > On targets where GMU is available, GMU takes over the ownership of GX GDSC
> > during its initialization. So, move the refcount-get on GX PD before we
> > initialize the GMU. This ensures that nobody can collapse the GX GDSC
> > once GMU owns the GX GDSC. This patch fixes some GMU OOB errors seen
> > during GPU wake up during a system resume.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@...eaurora.org>
> > Reported-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
> > Tested-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
>
> The Signed-off-by needs to be at the end but I think Rob can do that for you.

It does?  I've always been told that this is supposed to be roughly a
log of what happens.  In that sense you added your SoB before the
review/test happened so it should come before.  I know some
maintainers seem to do things differently but that seems to be the
most common.  In that sense, I think the order that Akhil has is
correct.  ...but, obviously, it's up to the maintainer.  ;-)