linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/17] drm/msm: a6xx: Fix gx_is

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: <62391e11-2f26-4e30-9c8d-b47d4985b41b@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 01:22:20 +0530
From: Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@....qualcomm.com>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>,
        Rob Clark <robin.clark@....qualcomm.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <lumag@...nel.org>,
        Abhinav Kumar <abhinav.kumar@...ux.dev>,
        Jessica Zhang <jessica.zhang@....qualcomm.com>,
        Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/17] drm/msm: a6xx: Fix gx_is_on check for a7x family

On 7/22/2025 8:03 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 7/20/25 2:16 PM, Akhil P Oommen wrote:
>> Bitfield definition for REG_A6XX_GMU_SPTPRAC_PWR_CLK_STATUS register is
>> different in A7XX family. Check the correct bits to see if GX is
>> collapsed on A7XX series.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@....qualcomm.com>
>> ---
> 
> This seems to have been introduced all the way back in the initial
> a7xx submission downstream, so I'll assume this concerns all SKUs
> and this is a relevant fixes tag:
> 
> Fixes: af66706accdf ("drm/msm/a6xx: Add skeleton A7xx support")
> 
> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>

Dmitry/Konrad,

We don't have to backport this change because the existing code reads a
couple of unused bits which are '0's and that is okay when IFPC is not
supported. So there is no practical benefit in cherry-picking this
change to older kernel versions.

-Akhil.

> 
> Konrad