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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAD=FV=VjTzD_Swcbuk8o20tGkkx1EtPF-CT74wZYBnB39-xLUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 13:29:18 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Cc:     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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm: msm: a6xx: fix gpu failure after system resume

Hi,


On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 1:24 PM Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:39 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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.  ;-)
>
> yeah, I chronological order was my understanding too.. but presumably
> the Reported-by happened before the Signed-of-by (which is how I
> reordered things when applying the patch)

Doh!  Yeah, I somehow read that as Reviewed-by.  Thanks!  :-)

-Doug