On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 at 15:14, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 11:04 AM Daniel Stone <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
