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

Message-ID: <87jz6cvlet.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 15:23:54 +0300
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Anusha Srivatsa <asrivats@...hat.com>, "uma.shankar@...el.com"
 <uma.shankar@...el.com>, ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com
Cc: Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, 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 Fri, 16 May 2025, Anusha Srivatsa <asrivats@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 5:22 AM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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, Maxime,
>
> Thinking out loud of different solutions we can have to make sure we take
> this forward.
>
> Is it possible to have a variant of drm_panel_follower for the non ARM
> devices? That way if at any point in
> the future, the drm_panel_follower infrastructure has to be used, the
> refcounting allocation can be bypassed?

Please let's not conflate two orthogonal matters. Refcounting or
allocation is not related to platforms in any way. I see no reason to
have that kind of dependency. It would just complicate matters more.


BR,
Jani.


>
> Adding Uma and VIlle to the thread here.
>
> Thanks!
> Anusha
>
>
>> --
>> Jani Nikula, Intel
>>
>>

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel