On 01 February, 2017 12:35 CET, Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 10:58:43AM +0000, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote: > > Hi Archit, > > > > On 01 February, 2017 10:44 CET, Archit Taneja <arch...@codeaurora.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 01/30/2017 10:35 PM, Jani Nikula wrote: > > > > On Sat, 28 Jan 2017, Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.se...@collabora.com> > > > > wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 01:18:47PM +0530, Archit Taneja wrote: > > > >> Hi Archit, > > > >> > > > >> Thank you for the comments! > > > >> > > > >> [...] > > > >>>> + total_size = (block[EDID_EXT_BLOCK_CNT] + 1) * EDID_LENGTH; > > > >>>> + if (total_size > EDID_LENGTH) { > > > >>>> + kfree(block); > > > >>>> + block = kmalloc(total_size, GFP_KERNEL); > > > >>>> + if (!block) > > > >>>> + return NULL; > > > >>>> + > > > >>>> + /* Yes, read the entire buffer, and do not skip the > > > >>>> first > > > >>>> + * EDID_LENGTH bytes. > > > >>>> + */ > > > >>> > > > >>> Is this the reason why you aren't using drm_do_get_edid()? > > > > > >> > > > >> Yes, for some hw specific reason, it is necessary to read the entire > > > >> EDID buffer starting from 0, not block by block. > > > > > > > > Hrmh, I'm planning on moving the edid override and firmware edid > > > > mechanisms at the drm_do_get_edid() level to be able to truly and > > > > transparently use a different edid. Currently, they're only used for > > > > modes, really, and lead to some info retrieved from overrides, some from > > > > the real edid. This kind of hacks will bypass the override/firmware edid > > > > mechanisms then too. :( > > > > > > It seems like there is a HW issue which prevents them from reading EDID > > > from an offset. So, I'm not sure if it is a hack or a HW limitation. > > > > > > > > One way around this would be to hide the HW requirement in the > > > get_edid_block func pointer passed to drm_do_get_edid(). This > > > would, however, result in more i2c reads (equal to # of extension > > > blocks) than what the patch currently does. > > > > > > Peter, if you think doing extra EDID reads isn't too costly on your > > > platform, you could consider using drm_do_get_edid(). If not, I guess > > > you'll miss out on the additional functionality Jani is going to add > > > > > in the future. > > > > My concern is that for almost one year now, every time I fix something > > one or two new requests are made. I'm happy to fix the driver, but I > > want a list of the changes that are required to get it upstream, before > > I make more changes. Can we agree on exactly what is preventing this > > driver to get upstream? Then I'll fix it. > > I think addressing this edid reading question post-merge is perfectly > fine. Aside, want to keep maintaing your stuff as part of the drm-misc > group, with the drivers-in-misc experiment?
Yes, sure! > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel