On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 01:55:21PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 14:46:51 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 06:16:52PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
It is fine for displays without audio functionality to not implement CEA extension in their EDID. Do not return an error in that case, instead return 0 as if there was a CEA extension with no audio or speaker block.
This fixes half of bug fdo#107825: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107825
Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare jdelvare@suse.de Cc: Maarten Lankhorst maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com Cc: Maxime Ripard maxime.ripard@bootlin.com Cc: Sean Paul sean@poorly.run Cc: David Airlie airlied@linux.ie Cc: Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- linux-5.2.orig/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c 2019-08-30 17:57:38.199990995 +0200 +++ linux-5.2/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c 2019-08-30 18:04:36.840333834 +0200 @@ -4130,7 +4130,7 @@ int drm_edid_to_sad(struct edid *edid, s cea = drm_find_cea_extension(edid); if (!cea) { DRM_DEBUG_KMS("SAD: no CEA Extension found\n");
return -ENOENT;
return 0;Seems reasonable. Maybe the cea_revision<3 branches should alse return 0?
I wasn't sure about that one, as I'm not familiar with this CEA extension thing.
If revision < 3 means the data is invalid then returning an error is fine. If on the other hand revision < 3 simply means that the block types we are looking for were not defined back then yes returning 0 instead would be better.
That is indeed the case. A quick read through the code showed that we're not 100% consistent in checing for that though. I just send a few patches to fix that up.