On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 04:49:36PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> The connector->override_edid flag is strictly for EDID override debugfs
> management, and drivers have no business using it.
>
> The check for override_edid was added in commit 301906290553 ("drm/i915:
> Ignore TMDS clock limit for DP++ when EDID override is set") to
> facilitate mode list cross-checking against modes in override EDID when
> the connector in question isn't even connected. The dual mode detect
> fallback would do VBT based limiting in this case.
>
> Instead of override EDID, check for connector forcing in the fallback.
>
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c | 6 ++----
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c
> index a332eaac86cd..878a65c887f7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c
> @@ -2374,10 +2374,8 @@ intel_hdmi_dp_dual_mode_detect(struct drm_connector
> *connector)
> * if the port is a dual mode capable DP port.
> */
> if (type == DRM_DP_DUAL_MODE_UNKNOWN) {
> - /* An overridden EDID imply that we want this port for testing.
> - * Make sure not to set limits for that port.
> - */
> - if (!connector->override_edid &&
> + if (connector->force != DRM_FORCE_ON &&
> + connector->force != DRM_FORCE_ON_DIGITAL &&
I don't think we can get here with force==OFF, so could simply to just
if (!connector->force && ...
which might even be less confusing either way. At least I'm getting
confused thinking we'd want to assume the presence of the adaptor
with force==OFF.
> intel_bios_is_port_dp_dual_mode(dev_priv, port)) {
> drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm,
> "Assuming DP dual mode adaptor presence
> based on VBT\n");
> --
> 2.34.1
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
