linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Cleanups for the nomodeset kernel command line parameter logic

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:20:14 +0100
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@...il.com>
Cc:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Cleanups for the nomodeset kernel command line
 parameter logic

On 11/12/21 11:57, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:

[snip]

>>>
>>> This is what HW-specific drivers want to query in their init/probing
>>> code. The actual semantics of this decision is hidden from the driver.
>>> It's also easier to read than the other name IMHO
>>
>> Ok, but what is a "native driver"? Or a "non-native driver"?
>> Is that established kernel terminology?
>>
>> I'd think a non-native driver is something that e.g. ndiswrapper is
>> loading. Is simpledrm like ndiswrapper in a sense? IIRC, simpledrm is
>> the driver that would not consult this function, right?
> 
> We use that term for hw-specific drivers. A 'non-native' driver would be 
> called generic or firmware driver.
> 
> My concern with the 'modeset' term is that it exposes an implementation 
> detail, which can mislead a driver to to the wrong thing: a HW-specifc 
> driver that disables it's modesetting functionality would pass the test 
> for (!modeset). But that's not what we want, we want to disable all of 
> the driver and not even load it.
> 
> How about we invert the test function and use something like
> 
>   bool drm_firmware_drivers_only()
>

That name I think is more self explanatory, so it works for me.

There was also another bikeshed about where to put the function declaration,
I added to <drm/drm_mode_config.h> but with that name I believe that should
be in <drm/drm_drv.h> instead.

Best regards, -- 
Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat