linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Introduce "non-pixel" sub node within iris video node

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5qsgbqml367yq6g5vb4lotrzulojqhi5zlwwribze373a63qrn@rxi4kwyt66m2>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2025 01:26:05 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
Cc: Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@...cinc.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Dikshita Agarwal <quic_dikshita@...cinc.com>,
        Abhinav Kumar <abhinav.kumar@...ux.dev>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Introduce "non-pixel" sub node within iris video
 node

On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 01:06:17PM +0100, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 02/07/2025 13:01, Vikash Garodia wrote:
> > > Anyway, in other messages I explained what is missing. You are changing
> > > existing hardware and you clearly must explain how existing hardware is
> > > affected, how can we reproduce it, how users are affected.
> > Exactly all of these i have explained in the commit message. The limitation with
> > existing hardware binding usage and how my new approach mitigates that limition.
> > 
> > Coming to usecase, i made a generic comment saying usecases which needs higher
> > IOVA, i can add the explicit detail about usecase like 8k or higher
> > concurrencies like 32 or higher concurrent sessions.
> 
> Why not make this change for a new SoC, instead of an existing ?

Because we definitely want to improve support for older SoCs too.

> 
> That way you don't have to make the argument for retrospective ABI changes.
> 
> ---
> bod

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry