In the future, we'll be needing more of the extended receiver capability field starting at DPCD address 0x2200. (Specifically, we'll need main link channel coding cap for DP 2.0.) Start using it now to not miss out later on.
Cc: Lyude Paul lyude@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula jani.nikula@intel.com
---
I guess this can be merged after the topic branch to drm-misc-next or so, but I'd prefer to have this fairly early on to catch any potential issues. --- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c index 1e7c638873c8..3a3c238452df 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c @@ -436,7 +436,7 @@ static u8 drm_dp_downstream_port_count(const u8 dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE]) static int drm_dp_read_extended_dpcd_caps(struct drm_dp_aux *aux, u8 dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE]) { - u8 dpcd_ext[6]; + u8 dpcd_ext[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE]; int ret;
/*
On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 15:32 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
In the future, we'll be needing more of the extended receiver capability field starting at DPCD address 0x2200. (Specifically, we'll need main link channel coding cap for DP 2.0.) Start using it now to not miss out later on.
Cc: Lyude Paul lyude@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula jani.nikula@intel.com
I guess this can be merged after the topic branch to drm-misc-next or so, but I'd prefer to have this fairly early on to catch any potential issues.
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c index 1e7c638873c8..3a3c238452df 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c @@ -436,7 +436,7 @@ static u8 drm_dp_downstream_port_count(const u8 dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE]) static int drm_dp_read_extended_dpcd_caps(struct drm_dp_aux *aux, u8 dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE]) {
- u8 dpcd_ext[6];
- u8 dpcd_ext[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE];
Not 100% sure this is right? It's not clear at first glance of the 2.0 spec, but my assumption would be that on < DP2.0 devices that everything but those first 6 bytes are zeroed out in the extended DPRX field. Since we memcpy() dpcd_ext using sizeof(dpcd_ext), we'd potentially end up zeroing out all of the DPCD caps that comes after those 6 bytes.
int ret;
/*
On Tue, 01 Sep 2020, Lyude Paul lyude@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 15:32 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
In the future, we'll be needing more of the extended receiver capability field starting at DPCD address 0x2200. (Specifically, we'll need main link channel coding cap for DP 2.0.) Start using it now to not miss out later on.
Cc: Lyude Paul lyude@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula jani.nikula@intel.com
I guess this can be merged after the topic branch to drm-misc-next or so, but I'd prefer to have this fairly early on to catch any potential issues.
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c index 1e7c638873c8..3a3c238452df 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c @@ -436,7 +436,7 @@ static u8 drm_dp_downstream_port_count(const u8 dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE]) static int drm_dp_read_extended_dpcd_caps(struct drm_dp_aux *aux, u8 dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE]) {
- u8 dpcd_ext[6];
- u8 dpcd_ext[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE];
Not 100% sure this is right? It's not clear at first glance of the 2.0 spec, but my assumption would be that on < DP2.0 devices that everything but those first 6 bytes are zeroed out in the extended DPRX field. Since we memcpy() dpcd_ext using sizeof(dpcd_ext), we'd potentially end up zeroing out all of the DPCD caps that comes after those 6 bytes.
Re-reading stuff... AFAICT everything in 0x2200..0x220F should be valid. They should match what's in 0x0000..0x000F except for 0x0000, 0x0001, and 0x0005, for backwards compatibility.
Apparently there are no such backwards compatibility concerns with the other receiver cap fields then.
But it gives me an uneasy feeling that many places in the spec refer to 0x2200+ even though they should per spec be the same in 0x0000+.
I guess we can try without the change, and fix later if we hit issues.
BR, Jani.
On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 21:01 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2020, Lyude Paul lyude@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 15:32 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
In the future, we'll be needing more of the extended receiver capability field starting at DPCD address 0x2200. (Specifically, we'll need main link channel coding cap for DP 2.0.) Start using it now to not miss out later on.
Cc: Lyude Paul lyude@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula jani.nikula@intel.com
I guess this can be merged after the topic branch to drm-misc-next or so, but I'd prefer to have this fairly early on to catch any potential issues.
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c index 1e7c638873c8..3a3c238452df 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c @@ -436,7 +436,7 @@ static u8 drm_dp_downstream_port_count(const u8 dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE]) static int drm_dp_read_extended_dpcd_caps(struct drm_dp_aux *aux, u8 dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE]) {
- u8 dpcd_ext[6];
- u8 dpcd_ext[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE];
Not 100% sure this is right? It's not clear at first glance of the 2.0 spec, but my assumption would be that on < DP2.0 devices that everything but those first 6 bytes are zeroed out in the extended DPRX field. Since we memcpy() dpcd_ext using sizeof(dpcd_ext), we'd potentially end up zeroing out all of the DPCD caps that comes after those 6 bytes.
Re-reading stuff... AFAICT everything in 0x2200..0x220F should be valid. They should match what's in 0x0000..0x000F except for 0x0000, 0x0001, and 0x0005, for backwards compatibility.
Apparently there are no such backwards compatibility concerns with the other receiver cap fields then.
But it gives me an uneasy feeling that many places in the spec refer to 0x2200+ even though they should per spec be the same in 0x0000+.
I guess we can try without the change, and fix later if we hit issues.
I'm fine with the change if it doesn't break things btw - just as long as we're making sure that we don't zero things out by accident
BR, Jani.
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020, Lyude Paul lyude@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 21:01 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
I guess we can try without the change, and fix later if we hit issues.
I'm fine with the change if it doesn't break things btw - just as long as we're making sure that we don't zero things out by accident
My conclusion was to go without, it's a trivial change to add afterwards as needed.
BR, Jani.
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Jani Nikula -
Lyude Paul