linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: drm/bridge: Add no-hpd property

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: <efd89cf8-2f83-44fd-8bdf-aa348d4d9659@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 12:52:52 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Harikrishna Shenoy <h-shenoy@...com>, andrzej.hajda@...el.com,
 neil.armstrong@...aro.org, rfoss@...nel.org,
 Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com, jonas@...boo.se,
 jernej.skrabec@...il.com, simona@...ll.ch,
 maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, mripard@...nel.org, tzimmermann@...e.de,
 robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 jani.nikula@...el.com, j-choudhary@...com, sui.jingfeng@...ux.dev,
 viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, r-ravikumar@...com, sjakhade@...ence.com,
 yamonkar@...ence.com, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: drm/bridge: Add no-hpd property

On 05/02/2025 12:50, Harikrishna Shenoy wrote:
> From: Rahul T R <r-ravikumar@...com>
> 
> The mhdp bridge can work without its HPD pin hooked up to the connector,
> but the current bridge driver throws an error when hpd line is not
> connected to the connector. For such cases, we need an indication for
> no-hpd, using which we can bypass the hpd detection and instead use the
> auxiliary channels connected to the DP connector to confirm the
> connection.
> So add no-hpd property to the bindings, to disable hpd when not
> connected or unusable due to DP0-HPD not connected to correct HPD 
> pin on SOC like in case of J721S2.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rahul T R <r-ravikumar@...com>

Why are you sending over and over the same? You already got feedback.
Then you send v2. You got the same feedback.

Now you send v3?

So the same feedback, but this time: NAK

Best regards,
Krzysztof