linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/8] drm: zynqmp_dp: IRQ cleanups and debugfs support

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]

Message-ID: <a023bd66-8f42-4f27-9aa2-5097b2574562@ideasonboard.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 17:50:31 +0300
From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com>
To: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...ux.dev>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>,
 Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, "Sagar, Vishal" <vishal.sagar@....com>,
 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
 Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
 Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/8] drm: zynqmp_dp: IRQ cleanups and debugfs support

Hi,

On 01/10/2024 21:31, Sean Anderson wrote:
> On 8/9/24 15:35, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> This series cleans up the zyqnmp_dp IRQ and locking situation. Once
>> that's done, it adds debugfs support. The intent is to enable compliance
>> testing or to help debug signal-integrity issues.

I think the patches 1-7 look fine, and I think I can pick those already 
to drm-misc if you're ok with that.

I'm a bit unsure about patch 8, probably mainly because I don't have 
experience with the compliance testing.

How have you tested this? With some DP analyzer/tester, I presume?

I think none of this (patch 8) is needed by almost anybody. Even among 
zynqmp_dp developers I assume it's very rare to have the hardware for 
this. I wonder if it would make sense to have the debugfs and related 
code behind a compile option (which would be nice as the code wouldn't 
even compiled in), or maybe a module parameter (which would be nice as 
then "anyone" can easily enable it for compliance testing). What do you 
think?

I also somehow recall that there was some discussion earlier about 
how/if other drivers support compliance testing. But I can't find the 
discussion. Do you remember if there was such discussion, and what was 
the conclusion? With a quick look, everything in the debugfs looks 
generic, not xilinx specific.

  Tomi