linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 32/37] drm/bridge: Make encoder pointer deprecated

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: <yy37e4kne7i2hl7coix6v7vajb5bm4zohod4fdzayvxr52l57u@cxturs2uxgcm>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 15:29:12 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, 
	Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, 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>, Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>, 
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 32/37] drm/bridge: Make encoder pointer deprecated

On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 02:07:18PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 06:35:15PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 03:43:51PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > Other entities (drm_connector.crtc, drm_encoder.crtc, etc.) have
> > > pointer to other currently bound entities. They are all considered
> > > relevant only for non-atomic drivers, and generally perceived as
> > > deprecated in favour of the equivalent pointers in the atomic states.
> > 
> > I think there is a significant difference between mentioned fields and
> > drm_bridge.encoder: the former fields are variable and can change. The
> > latter one is static and set at the bridge attachment time. Nevertheless
> > I think it is a good idea to deprecate it.
> 
> I'm sorry, it's not clear to me here what you want here either. Do you
> want me to change anything to that patch?

Well... I was thinking if we should expand the commit message. Most
likely it's fine though. In the end, I've r-b'ed the patch.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry