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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <39c249d9-4366-4d34-c294-a111ab4a8bfd@suse.de>
Date:   Fri, 12 Nov 2021 12:23:21 +0100
From:   Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>
To:     Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
        Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@...il.com>
Cc:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Cleanups for the nomodeset kernel command line
 parameter logic

Hi

Am 12.11.21 um 12:20 schrieb Javier Martinez Canillas:
> 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.

I agree with drm_drv.h. It's a DRM-wide function and it fit's there 
best, I'd say.

Best regards
Thomas

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

-- 
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev

Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature" of type "application/pgp-signature" (841 bytes)