linux-kernel - Re:Re: [PATCH v4] drm/rockchip: Disable AFBC for res >2560 on rk3399

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a893834.9206.196484ef2ab.Coremail.andyshrk@163.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 17:50:55 +0800 (CST)
From: "Andy Yan" <andyshrk@....com>
To: "Daniel Stone" <daniel@...ishbar.org>
Cc: "Konstantin Shabanov" <mail@...htsea.me>,
	"Sandy Huang" <hjc@...k-chips.com>,
	Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	"Andy Yan" <andy.yan@...k-chips.com>,
	"Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Maxime Ripard" <mripard@...nel.org>,
	"Thomas Zimmermann" <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
	"David Airlie" <airlied@...il.com>,
	"Simona Vetter" <simona@...ll.ch>, "Dan Callaghan" <djc@....id.au>,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re:Re: [PATCH v4] drm/rockchip: Disable AFBC for res >2560 on
 rk3399


Hi 
At 2025-04-18 17:43:19, "Daniel Stone" <daniel@...ishbar.org> wrote:
>Hi Andy,
>
>On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 at 01:16, Andy Yan <andyshrk@....com> wrote:
>> I prefer the V1 version PATCH[0]. This is because we do not deal with hardware-related
>> differences at this level.  It involves a VOP-related restriction and we always  handle
>> limitiation like this  within the VOP driver .
>
>As said in the review for v1, this is not enough for generic userspace.
>
>If drmModeAddFB2WithModifiers() fails, userspace knows that the buffer
>can never work in that configuration, and it should fall back. If
>drmModeAtomicCommit(DRM_MODE_ATOMIC_TEST_ONLY) fails, userspace does
>not know that the buffer can _never_ work, because the failure may be
>transient or due to a combination of things.
>
>Returning the more localised error saves userspace a lot of work and
>enables a more optimal system.

Okay,  fine, ACK.

>
>Cheers,
>Daniel