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]
Date:   Fri, 8 Oct 2021 15:38:21 +0300
From:   Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc:     Prashant Malani <pmalani@...omium.org>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Abhinav Kumar <abhinavk@...eaurora.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Kuogee Hsieh <khsieh@...eaurora.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Vara Reddy <varar@...eaurora.org>,
        freedreno <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] drm/msm/dp: Allow attaching a drm_panel

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 09:15:12AM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> The one thing that I still don't understand though is, if the typec_mux
> is used by the typec controller to inform _the_ mux about the function
> to be used, what's up with the complexity in typec_mux_match()? This is
> what lead me to believe that typec_mux was enabling/disabling individual
> altmodes, rather just flipping the physical switch at the bottom.

Ah, typec_mux_match() is a mess. I'm sorry about that. I think most of
the code in that function is not used by anybody. If I remember
correctly, all that complexity is attempting to solve some
hypothetical corner case(s). Probable a case where we have multiple
muxes per port to deal with.

I think it would probable be best to clean the function to the bare
minimum by keeping only the parts that are actually used today
(attached).

thanks,

-- 
heikki

View attachment "mux.diff" of type "text/plain" (1594 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ