linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] drm: Allow simpledrm to setup its emulated FB as firmware provided

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:   Thu, 5 May 2022 14:45:27 +0200
From:   Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] drm: Allow simpledrm to setup its emulated FB as
 firmware provided

Hello Daniel,

On 5/5/22 14:11, Daniel Vetter wrote:

[snip]

>>
>> And while I agree with you that these midlayer flags are horrible, that is
>> what any other fbdev that makes use of a firmware-provided framebuffer set,
>> so simpledrm emulated fbdev shouldn't be the exception IMO.
> 
> So we discussed this a pile more on irc, and at least my take is that
> people who run simpledrm but want to combine that with fbdev drivers and
> expect it to all work nicely we can probably ignore. At least until all
> this sysfb stuff is nicely unified, and at that point we shouldn't need
> special flags anymore.

I'm OK with this take and happy to just drop this patch-set then. My worry
was just that someone could complain that we broke their uncommon setup [0].

[0]: https://xkcd.com/1172/.

-- 
Best regards,

Javier Martinez Canillas
Linux Engineering
Red Hat