linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm: bridge: samsung-dsim: Don't use FORCE_STOP

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:   Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:53:40 +0100
From:   Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>
To:     Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>
Cc:     Inki Dae <inki.dae@...sung.com>,
        Jagan Teki <jagan@...rulasolutions.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
        Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Tim Harvey <tharvey@...eworks.com>,
        Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@...tq-group.com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: bridge: samsung-dsim: Don't use FORCE_STOP_STATE

Hi,

> My current guess would be that the issue I was seeing was already fixed
> with dd9e329af723 ("drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi83: Fix enable/disable flow 
> to
> meet spec") and I didn't properly test both changes separately.

I had the exact same thought, as I've found your second patch.

> My cheap scope is not able to capture the DSI signals and I admit that
> we didn't use our more expensive equipment to verify the changes back 
> then.
> 
> Instead, we had an automated test setup to do cyclic on/off switching
> for the display and check for a black screen using a sensor. It is 
> quite
> a hassle to set up and I'm currently not planning to spend that much
> effort to verify this change again.

That is actually, what we are also doing right now and how the issue was
found in the first place.

> Anyway, I currently don't see any reasons to not revert my changes. 
> Your
> revert looks correct and seems to work fine as far as I can tell.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@...tron.de>

Thanks!

-michael