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
