linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] arm64: dts: qcom: Add Lenovo ThinkBook 16 G7 QOY device tree

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: <CAO9ioeWk1-dUQYDS1oQNc-QaRu5MG_C=JRx6RPiFE-OQjB7g3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 20:42:36 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
To: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Cc: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>,
        Aleksandrs Vinarskis <alex.vinarskis@...il.com>,
        jens.glathe@...schoolsolutions.biz,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
        Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@...cinc.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>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] arm64: dts: qcom: Add Lenovo ThinkBook 16 G7 QOY
 device tree

On Wed, 28 May 2025 at 19:50, Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 11:18 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
> <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 12:55:06PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > > On 5/26/25 5:28 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > > On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 1:36 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
> > > > <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 09:43:36PM +0200, Aleksandrs Vinarskis wrote:
> > > >>> On Sun, 25 May 2025 at 15:33, Dmitry Baryshkov
> > > >>> <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > >> Yes, please. Don't set okay status for the GPU until it gets enabled.
> > > >
> > > > Drive-by: Shouldn't the dtb describe the hw and not the state of the
> > > > linux kernel's support for the hw?  Ie. if bad things happen if we
> > > > describe hw which is missing driver support, shouldn't we fix that in
> > > > the driver.
> > > >
> > > > (In the case of the GPU there is the slight wrinkle that we don't have
> > > > a gpu-id yet so there is no compatible in the dtb yet.)
> > >
> > > My two cents are that it's okay to enable it, at least in this case..
> >
> > That would most likely make display unavailable as DPU driver uses GPU
> > as one of the components.
>
> Hmm, perhaps we should allow the gpu to probe, but just fail to create
> priv->gpu, similarly to how we handle missing firmware?

Ack from my side. I'd also like to remind you about my split-GPU-from
display series.

>
> BR,
> -R



-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry