linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm: bridge: ti-sn65dsi83: Add error recovery mechanism

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: <20241028132858.GE6081@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 15:28:58 +0200
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
Cc: Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>,
	Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>,
	Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
	Robert Foss <rfoss@...nel.org>, Jonas Karlman <jonas@...boo.se>,
	Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm: bridge: ti-sn65dsi83: Add error recovery
 mechanism

On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 01:21:45PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 01:28:57PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 09:13:31AM +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> > > On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:23:50 +0200 Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > > > +static int sn65dsi83_reset_pipeline(struct sn65dsi83 *sn65dsi83)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	struct drm_device *dev = sn65dsi83->bridge.dev;
> > > > > +	struct drm_modeset_acquire_ctx ctx;
> > > > > +	struct drm_atomic_state *state;
> > > > > +	int err;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* Use operation done in drm_atomic_helper_suspend() followed by
> > > > > +	 * operation done in drm_atomic_helper_resume() but without releasing
> > > > > +	 * the lock between suspend()/resume()
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	DRM_MODESET_LOCK_ALL_BEGIN(dev, ctx, 0, err);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	state = drm_atomic_helper_duplicate_state(dev, &ctx);
> > > > > +	if (IS_ERR(state)) {
> > > > > +		err = PTR_ERR(state);
> > > > > +		goto unlock;
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	err = drm_atomic_helper_disable_all(dev, &ctx);
> > > > > +	if (err < 0)
> > > > > +		goto unlock;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	drm_mode_config_reset(dev);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	err = drm_atomic_helper_commit_duplicated_state(state, &ctx);  
> > > > 
> > > > Committing a full atomic state from a bridge driver in an asynchronous
> > > > way seems quite uncharted territory, and it worries me. It's also a very
> > > > heavyweight, you disable all outputs here, instead of focussing on the
> > > > output connected to the bridge. Can you either implement something more
> > > > local, resetting the bridge only, or create a core helper to handle this
> > > > kind of situation, on a per-output basis ?
> > > 
> > > A full restart of the bridge (power off/on) is needed and so we need to
> > > redo the initialization sequence. This initialization sequence has to be
> > > done with the DSI data lanes (bridge inputs) driven in LP11 state and so
> > > without any video stream. Only focussing on bridge outputs will not be
> > > sufficient. That's why I brought the pipeline down and restarted it.
> > 
> > Fair point.
> > 
> > > Of course, I can copy/paste sn65dsi83_reset_pipeline() to a core helper
> > > function. Is drm_atomic_helper_reset_all() could be a good candidate?
> > 
> > The helper should operate on a single output, unrelated outputs should
> > not be affected.
> 
> Also, you don't want to reset anything, you just want the last commit to
> be replayed.

I'm not sure about that. If the last commit is just a page flip, that
won't help, will it ?

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart