linux-kernel - Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH v5 2/5] drm/msm/dsi: Adjust pclk rate for compression

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:   Sun, 11 Jun 2023 23:19:54 +0200
From:   Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>
To:     Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>
Cc:     Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com>,
        freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Freedreno] [PATCH v5 2/5] drm/msm/dsi: Adjust pclk rate for
 compression

On 2023-06-08 18:09:57, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
<snip>
> >> As discussed before we realized that this change is more-or-less a hack,
> >> since downstream calculates pclk quite differently - at least for
> >> command-mode panels.  Do you still intend to land this patch this way,
> >> or go the proper route by introducing the right math from the get-go?
> >> Or is the math at least correct for video-mode panels?
> > 
> > Sorry but can you please clarify what exactly is incorrect or different 
> > about this math when compared to downstream? And, if you think that this 
> > math is incorrect, what exactly has to be changed to make it the "right 
> > math"?
> > 
> 
> Agree with Jessica, just calling the math a hack without explaining why 
> you think it is so is not justified especially when a great detail of 
> explanation was given on the bug. Sorry but its a bit harsh on the 
> developers.

We discussed this in detail so I'm not quite sure why that suddenly
needs to be reiterated again?

- Marijn