On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 05:57:08PM +0000, C, Ramalingam wrote:
Thanks seanpaul for the reviews.
-----Original Message----- From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanpaul@chromium.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 1:51 AM To: C, Ramalingam ramalingam.c@intel.com Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; daniel@ffwll.ch; Winkler, Tomas tomas.winkler@intel.com; Usyskin, Alexander alexander.usyskin@intel.com; Shankar, Uma uma.shankar@intel.com Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 01/40] drm: hdcp2.2 authentication msg definitions
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 02:09:50PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote:
This patch defines the hdcp2.2 protocol messages for authentication.
v2: bit_fields are removed. Instead bitmasking used. [Tomas and Jani] prefix HDCP_2_2_ is added to the macros. [Tomas] v3: No Changes. v4: Style and spellings are fixed [Uma] v5: Fix for macros.
Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C ramalingam.c@intel.com
include/drm/drm_hdcp.h | 179 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 179 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h b/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h index 98e63d870139..3e963c5d04b2 100644 --- a/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h +++ b/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h @@ -38,4 +38,183 @@ #define DRM_HDCP_DDC_BSTATUS 0x41 #define DRM_HDCP_DDC_KSV_FIFO 0x43
+#define DRM_HDCP_1_4_SRM_ID 0x8 +#define DRM_HDCP_1_4_VRL_LENGTH_SIZE 3 +#define DRM_HDCP_1_4_DCP_SIG_SIZE 40
These don't seem to be related to the patch?
+/* Protocol message definition for HDCP2.2 specification */ +#define HDCP_STREAM_TYPE0 0x00 +#define HDCP_STREAM_TYPE1 0x01
Why not HDCP_2_2 prefix?
Though they are introduced at HDCP2.2, this is classification of the streams. And Type 0 can be transmitted on HDCP1.4. So keeping it as generic name with no version mentioned.
Ok, I guess it's the comment that was throwing me off. Perhaps you could improve it to:
/* * Protected video streams are classified into 2 types: * - Type0: Can be transmitted with HDCP 1.4+ * - Type1: Can be transmitted with HDCP 2.2+ */
/snip
+} __packed;
Perhaps this has already been asked and answered, but do all of these need to be __packed? This is kind of the problem with adding a bunch of unused structures to a patch, it's hard to see what their usage is. In future, these should probably be introduced when they're being used.
These are the HDCP2.2 message defined at HDCP2.2 spec. And they needs to be __packed just to have exact size mentioned by spec.
Like how we have HDCP1.4 and 2.2 macros defined as per the HDCP spec definitions, defined the HDCP2.2 messages together here.
Thanks for the explanation.
Sean
Thanks, Ram.
Sean
#endif
2.7.4
Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
-- Sean Paul, Software Engineer, Google / Chromium OS