linux-kernel - Re: [v8 4/6] drm/panel-simple: Update validation warnings for eDP panel description

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: <d75afefac48229657d36e12b6bac0e9f@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:46:24 +0530
From:   rajeevny@...eaurora.org
To:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
Cc:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thierry.reding@...il.com,
        sam@...nborg.org, robdclark@...il.com, dianders@...omium.org,
        lyude@...hat.com, jani.nikula@...el.com, robh@...nel.org,
        a.hajda@...sung.com, daniel.thompson@...aro.org,
        hoegsberg@...omium.org, abhinavk@...eaurora.org,
        seanpaul@...omium.org, kalyan_t@...eaurora.org,
        mkrishn@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [v8 4/6] drm/panel-simple: Update validation warnings for eDP
 panel description

Hi Laurent,

On 27-06-2021 23:48, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Rajeev,
> 
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 10:21:06PM +0530, Rajeev Nandan wrote:
>> Do not give a warning for the eDP panels if the "bus_format" is
>> not specified, since most eDP panels can support more than one
>> bus formats and this can be auto-detected.
>> Also, update the check to include bpc=10 for the eDP panel.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Rajeev Nandan <rajeevny@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>> 
>> Changes in v8:
>> - New patch, to address the review comments of Sam Ravnborg [1]
>> 
>> [1] 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20210621184157.GB918146@ravnborg.org/
>> 
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c | 6 ++----
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c 
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c
>> index 86e5a45..f966b562 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panel/panel-simple.c
>> @@ -772,10 +772,8 @@ static int panel_simple_probe(struct device *dev, 
>> const struct panel_desc *desc,
>>  			desc->bpc != 8);
>>  		break;
>>  	case DRM_MODE_CONNECTOR_eDP:
>> -		if (desc->bus_format == 0)
>> -			dev_warn(dev, "Specify missing bus_format\n");
>> -		if (desc->bpc != 6 && desc->bpc != 8)
>> -			dev_warn(dev, "Expected bpc in {6,8} but got: %u\n", desc->bpc);
>> +		if (desc->bpc != 6 && desc->bpc != 8 && desc->bpc != 10)
>> +			dev_warn(dev, "Expected bpc in {6,8,10} but got: %u\n", 
>> desc->bpc);
> 
> You'll still get a warning is bpc == 0, is that intentional ?

This was not intentional, I missed considering bpc=0 case. As we are 
removing the warning for bus_format=0 then a similar thing can be done 
for the bpc=0 also. The bpc value should be a valid one if it is 
specified. Unlike the bus_format, bpc has few possible values that can 
be checked here along with 0. Please correct me if I misunderstood the 
concept.
I will fix this.

Thanks,
Rajeev