linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Fix ti_sn_bridge_set_dsi

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAA8EJpq2UkMn9ArSNaJcOyw28H4uUcRwvUqfUBBqSCALmozBrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:09:42 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudhary@...com>
Cc: dianders@...omium.org, andrzej.hajda@...el.com, neil.armstrong@...aro.org, 
	rfoss@...nel.org, Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com, mripard@...nel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jonas@...boo.se, jernej.skrabec@...il.com, 
	maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, tzimmermann@...e.de, airlied@...il.com, 
	daniel@...ll.ch, spanda@...eaurora.org, a-bhatia1@...com, 
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/bridge: ti-sn65dsi86: Fix ti_sn_bridge_set_dsi_rate
 function

On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 at 13:05, Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudhary@...com> wrote:
>
> Hello Dmitry,
>
> On 18/06/24 14:33, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 01:44:18PM GMT, Jayesh Choudhary wrote:
> >> During code inspection, it was found that due to integer calculations,
> >> the rounding off can cause errors in the final value propagated in the
> >> registers.
> >> Considering the example of 1080p (very common resolution), the mode->clock
> >> is 148500, dsi->lanes = 4, and bpp = 24, with the previous logic, the DSI
> >> clock frequency would come as 444 when we are expecting the value 445.5
> >> which would reflect in SN_DSIA_CLK_FREQ_REG.
> >> So move the division to be the last operation where rounding off will not
> >> impact the register value.
> >
> > Should this division use DIV_ROUND_UP instead? DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST?
> >
>
> Floor of the final value is expected according to datasheet.
> The error was due to taking floor earlier and then error propagation
> due to multiplication later on.
> I think we can come up with a case when DIV_ROUND_UP can also give this
> error. So this particular approach seemed okay to me.

Ack

>
> >>
> >> Fixes: a095f15c00e2 ("drm/bridge: add support for sn65dsi86 bridge driver")
> >> Signed-off-by: Jayesh Choudhary <j-choudhary@...com>
> >
> > Fixes should go before feature patches. Please change the order of you
> > patches for the next submission.
>
> Okay. this was supposed to be code snippet movement in the first patch
> and fix in the second patch as suggested in v1:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/dri-devel/patch/20240408073623.186489-1-j-choudhary@ti.com/#25801801

My point is pretty simple: fixes are backported to the earlier
kernels. non-fixing commits are not. In your patchset you have added a
dependency from the fix onto a non-fix (and
not-selected-for-backporting) patch, which is not so good.

>
> I can fix it in next revision.


-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry