linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Restore ACTLR settings for MDSS on sa8775p

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: <aXIJMRcfuJwi73iz@willie-the-truck>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 11:25:37 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Bibek Kumar Patro <bibek.patro@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>,
	catalin.marinas@....com, charan.kalla@....qualcomm.com,
	iommu@...ts.linux.dev, joro@...tes.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
	konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robin.clark@....qualcomm.com,
	robin.murphy@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iommu/arm-smmu-qcom: Restore ACTLR settings for MDSS on
 sa8775p

On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 04:52:10PM +0530, Bibek Kumar Patro wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/21/2026 3:56 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 08:41:05PM +0530, bibek.patro@....qualcomm.com wrote:
> > > From: Bibek Kumar Patro <bibek.patro@....qualcomm.com>
> > > 
> > > The ACTLR configuration for the sa8775p MDSS client was inadvertently
> > > dropped while reworking the commit f91879fdf70b ("iommu/arm-smmu-qcom:
> > > Add actlr settings for mdss on Qualcomm platforms"). Without this
> > > entry, the sa8775p MDSS block does not receive the intended default
> > > ACTLR configuration.
> > > 
> > > Restore the missing compatible entry so that the platform receives the
> > > expected behavior.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Bibek Kumar Patro <bibek.patro@....qualcomm.com>
> > 
> > Missing Fixes tag. Otherwise LGTM
> 
> It looks like [1] hasn’t landed on any release branch yet - it’s still
> only present in Will’s tree, which is also where the referenced “fixed
> ‘commit f91879fdf70b’” SHA was taken from.
> Given that, do we need a Fixes: tag in this case? and should it use the
> same SHA from Will’s tree.

I'll add it when I apply, no worries. Still playing catch-up with patches
:(

Will