linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] drm/panel: Add refcount 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: <875xi3im1r.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 12:22:40 +0300
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>
Cc: Anusha Srivatsa <asrivats@...hat.com>, Neil Armstrong
 <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>, Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@...cinc.com>,
 Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Thomas Zimmermann
 <tzimmermann@...e.de>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter
 <simona@...ll.ch>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] drm/panel: Add refcount support

On Tue, 13 May 2025, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org> wrote:
> Is it really surprising you get some pushback when you are using a
> design that is the complete opposite to what every user of it for the
> last decade has been doing?

The opposite is also true.

If you create a design that does not cleanly fit the model of the
biggest drivers in the subsystem, and expect massive refactors just for
the sake of conforming to the design to be able to use any of it, you'll
also get pushback.

> This one is usable, but you rule out the way you could use it.

I think you're off-hand and completely dismissing the amount of work it
would be. And still I'm not even ruling it out, but there has to be a
way to start off in small incremental steps, and use the parts that
work. And it's not like we're averse to refactoring in the least,
everyone knows that.

> I guess it's clear now that you won't consider anything else. I wonder
> why you started that discussion in the first place if you already have
> a clear mind on how to get things moving forward.

I pointed out what I think is a bug in drm_panel, with nothing but good
intentions, and everything snowballed from there.

There has to be a middle ground instead of absolutes. Otherwise we'll
just end up in deeper silos. And more arguments.

BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel