linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/msm/dp: remove limitation of link rate at 5.4G to support HBR3

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:   Wed, 2 Nov 2022 21:04:13 +0300
From:   Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@...cinc.com>, robdclark@...il.com,
        sean@...rly.run, swboyd@...omium.org, vkoul@...nel.org,
        daniel@...ll.ch, airlied@...ux.ie, agross@...nel.org,
        quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com, quic_sbillaka@...cinc.com,
        freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/msm/dp: remove limitation of link rate at 5.4G to
 support HBR3

On 02/11/2022 20:28, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 10:23 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
> <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. Someone figures out how to model this with the bridge chain and
>>> then we only allow HBR3 if we detect we've got a TCPC that supports
>>> it. This seems like the cleanest / best but feels like a long pole.
>>> Not only have we been trying to get the TCPC-modeled-as-a-bridge stuff
>>> landed for a long time but even when we do it we still don't have a
>>> solution for how to communicate the number of lanes and other stuff
>>> between the TCPC and the DP controller so we have to enrich the bridge
>>> interface.
>>
>> I think we'd need some OOB interface. For example for DSI interfaces we
>> have mipi_dsi_device struct to communicate such OOB data.
>>
>> Also take a note regarding data-lanes from my previous email.
> 
> Right, we can somehow communicate the max link rate through the bridge
> chain to the DP controller in an OOB manner that would work.

I'd note that our dp_panel has some notion of such OOB data. So do AUX 
drivers including the panel-edp. My suggestion would be to consider both 
of them while modelling the OOB data.

> 
> 
>>> 2. We add in a DT property to the display controller node that says
>>> the max link rate for use on this board. This feels like a hack, but
>>> maybe it's not too bad. Certainly it would be incredibly simple to
>>> implement. Actually... ...one could argue that even if we later model
>>> the TCPC as a bridge that this property would still be valid / useful!
>>> You could certainly imagine that the SoC supports HBR3 and the TCPC
>>> supports HBR3 but that the board routing between the SoC and the TCPC
>>> is bad and only supports HBR2. In this case the only way out is
>>> essentially a "board constraint" AKA a DT property in the DP
>>> controller.
>>
>> We have been discussing similar topics with Abhinav. Krzysztof suggested
>> using link-frequencies property to provide max and min values.
> 
> This sounds good to me and seems worth doing even if we eventually do #1.

And the bonus point is that it can be done easily.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry