All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
	Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>,
	David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] drm: Add Content Protection property
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:28:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171205102840.GB12982@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171130030907.26848-2-seanpaul@chromium.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1155 bytes --]

On Wed 2017-11-29 22:08:56, Sean Paul wrote:
> This patch adds a new optional connector property to allow userspace to enable
> protection over the content it is displaying. This will typically be implemented
> by the driver using HDCP.
> 
> The property is a tri-state with the following values:
> - OFF: Self explanatory, no content protection
> - DESIRED: Userspace requests that the driver enable protection
> - ENABLED: Once the driver has authenticated the link, it sets this value
> 
> The driver is responsible for downgrading ENABLED to DESIRED if the link becomes
> unprotected. The driver should also maintain the desiredness of protection
> across hotplug/dpms/suspend.

Why would user of the machine want this to be something else than
'OFF'?

If kernel implements this, will it mean hardware vendors will have to
prevent user from updating kernel on machines they own?

If this is merged, does it open kernel developers to DMCA threats if
they try to change it?

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] drm: Add Content Protection property
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:28:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171205102840.GB12982@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171130030907.26848-2-seanpaul@chromium.org>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1155 bytes --]

On Wed 2017-11-29 22:08:56, Sean Paul wrote:
> This patch adds a new optional connector property to allow userspace to enable
> protection over the content it is displaying. This will typically be implemented
> by the driver using HDCP.
> 
> The property is a tri-state with the following values:
> - OFF: Self explanatory, no content protection
> - DESIRED: Userspace requests that the driver enable protection
> - ENABLED: Once the driver has authenticated the link, it sets this value
> 
> The driver is responsible for downgrading ENABLED to DESIRED if the link becomes
> unprotected. The driver should also maintain the desiredness of protection
> across hotplug/dpms/suspend.

Why would user of the machine want this to be something else than
'OFF'?

If kernel implements this, will it mean hardware vendors will have to
prevent user from updating kernel on machines they own?

If this is merged, does it open kernel developers to DMCA threats if
they try to change it?

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: pavel@ucw.cz (Pavel Machek)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/6] drm: Add Content Protection property
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 11:28:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171205102840.GB12982@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171130030907.26848-2-seanpaul@chromium.org>

On Wed 2017-11-29 22:08:56, Sean Paul wrote:
> This patch adds a new optional connector property to allow userspace to enable
> protection over the content it is displaying. This will typically be implemented
> by the driver using HDCP.
> 
> The property is a tri-state with the following values:
> - OFF: Self explanatory, no content protection
> - DESIRED: Userspace requests that the driver enable protection
> - ENABLED: Once the driver has authenticated the link, it sets this value
> 
> The driver is responsible for downgrading ENABLED to DESIRED if the link becomes
> unprotected. The driver should also maintain the desiredness of protection
> across hotplug/dpms/suspend.

Why would user of the machine want this to be something else than
'OFF'?

If kernel implements this, will it mean hardware vendors will have to
prevent user from updating kernel on machines they own?

If this is merged, does it open kernel developers to DMCA threats if
they try to change it?

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20171205/db10c986/attachment.sig>

  reply	other threads:[~2017-12-05 10:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-11-30  3:08 [RFC PATCH 0/6] drm/i915: Implement HDCP Sean Paul
2017-11-30  3:08 ` [RFC PATCH 1/6] drm: Add Content Protection property Sean Paul
2017-11-30  3:08   ` Sean Paul
2017-11-30  3:08   ` Sean Paul
2017-12-05 10:28   ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2017-12-05 10:28     ` Pavel Machek
2017-12-05 10:28     ` Pavel Machek
2017-12-05 10:45     ` Daniel Vetter
2017-12-05 10:45       ` Daniel Vetter
2017-12-05 10:45       ` Daniel Vetter
2017-12-05 17:34       ` Pavel Machek
2017-12-05 17:34         ` Pavel Machek
2017-12-05 17:34         ` Pavel Machek
2017-12-05 17:53         ` Alex Deucher
2017-12-05 17:53           ` Alex Deucher
2017-12-05 17:53           ` Alex Deucher
2017-12-05 18:01           ` Pavel Machek
2017-12-05 18:01             ` Pavel Machek
2017-12-05 18:01             ` Pavel Machek
2017-12-07 14:32           ` Alan Cox
2017-12-07 14:32             ` Alan Cox
2017-12-05 19:03         ` Sean Paul
2017-12-05 19:03           ` Sean Paul
2017-12-05 19:03           ` Sean Paul
2017-12-05 20:14         ` Daniel Stone
2017-12-05 20:14           ` Daniel Stone
2017-12-05 20:14           ` Daniel Stone
2017-12-07 14:30       ` Alan Cox
2017-12-07 14:30         ` Alan Cox
2017-12-07 14:30         ` Alan Cox
2017-12-08  8:55         ` Daniel Vetter
2017-12-08  8:55           ` Daniel Vetter
2017-12-08  8:55           ` Daniel Vetter
2017-11-30  3:08 ` [RFC PATCH 2/6] drm: Add some HDCP related #defines Sean Paul
2017-11-30  3:08   ` Sean Paul
2017-11-30  3:08 ` [RFC PATCH 3/6] drm/i915: Add HDCP framework + base implementation Sean Paul
2017-11-30  3:08   ` Sean Paul
2017-11-30  9:12   ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
2017-12-01  7:23   ` Ramalingam C
2017-12-01  7:23     ` Ramalingam C
2017-12-01  7:36     ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2017-12-01  7:36       ` Daniel Vetter
2017-12-01  8:36       ` [Intel-gfx] " Ramalingam C
2017-12-01  8:36         ` Ramalingam C
2017-12-01 14:13         ` Sean Paul
2017-12-01 14:13           ` Sean Paul
2017-12-01 14:12       ` [Intel-gfx] " Sean Paul
2017-12-01 14:16       ` Sean Paul
2017-12-01 14:16         ` Sean Paul
2017-11-30  3:08 ` [RFC PATCH 4/6] drm/i915: Add function to output Aksv over GMBUS Sean Paul
2017-11-30  3:08   ` Sean Paul
2017-11-30  3:09 ` [RFC PATCH 5/6] drm/i915: Implement HDCP for HDMI Sean Paul
2017-11-30  3:09   ` Sean Paul
2017-12-01  7:31   ` Ramalingam C
2017-12-01  7:31     ` Ramalingam C
2017-11-30  3:09 ` [RFC PATCH 6/6] drm/i915: Implement HDCP for DisplayPort Sean Paul
2017-11-30  7:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH 0/6] drm/i915: Implement HDCP Daniel Vetter
2017-12-05 13:45   ` Ville Syrjälä
2017-12-05 14:45     ` Sean Paul
2017-11-30  9:07 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for " Patchwork
2017-11-30 10:05 ` Patchwork
2017-11-30 15:15 ` Patchwork

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20171205102840.GB12982@amd \
    --to=pavel@ucw.cz \
    --cc=airlied@linux.ie \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=gustavo@padovan.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=seanpaul@chromium.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.