On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 15:14, Alex Deucher alexdeucher@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 11:04 AM Daniel Stone daniel@fooishbar.org wrote:
That's not what anyone's saying here ...
No-one's demanding AMD publish RTL, or internal design docs, or hardware specs, or URLs to JIRA tickets no-one can access.
This is a large and invasive commit with pretty big ramifications; containing exactly two lines of commit message, one of which just duplicates the subject.
It cannot be the case that it's completely impossible to provide any justification, background, or details, about this commit being made. Unless, of course, it's to fix a non-public security issue, that is reasonable justification for eliding some of the details. But then again, 'huge change which is very deliberately opaque' is a really good way to draw a lot of attention to the commit, and it would be better to provide more detail about the change to help it slip under the radar.
If dri-devel@ isn't allowed to inquire about patches which are posted, then CCing the list is just a façade; might as well just do it all internally and periodically dump out pull requests.
I think we are in agreement. I think the withheld information Christian was referring to was on another thread with Christian and Paul discussing a workaround for a hardware bug: https://www.spinics.net/lists/amd-gfx/msg75908.html
Right, that definitely seems like some crossed wires. I don't see anything wrong with that commit at all: the commit message and a comment notes that there is a hardware issue preventing Raven from being able to do TMZ+GTT, and the code does the very straightforward and obvious thing to ensure that on VCN 1.0, any TMZ buffer must be VRAM-placed.
This one, on the other hand, is much less clear ...
Cheers, Daniel