[PATCH] Fix wrong assumptions in cea_for_each_detailed_block v2

2011-11-15 Thread Andy Furniss
Christian Schmidt wrote: Tested with all three applied and they work well on my TV all modes work, which was not the case previously if I added manually the modes listed in xorg log (I have three bogus/not working modes logged by xorg). I do have a small problem with the interlaced modes - I as

Re: [PATCH] Fix wrong assumptions in cea_for_each_detailed_block v2

2011-11-15 Thread Andy Furniss
Christian Schmidt wrote: Tested with all three applied and they work well on my TV all modes work, which was not the case previously if I added manually the modes listed in xorg log (I have three bogus/not working modes logged by xorg). I do have a small problem with the interlaced modes - I

[PATCH] Fix wrong assumptions in cea_for_each_detailed_block v2

2011-11-15 Thread James Cloos
> "CS" == Christian Schmidt writes: CS> The current logic misunderstands the spec about CEA 18byte descriptors. CS> First, the spec doesn't state "detailed timing descriptors" but "18 byte CS> descriptors", so any data record could be stored, mixed timings and CS> other data, just as in the s

Re: [PATCH] Fix wrong assumptions in cea_for_each_detailed_block v2

2011-11-15 Thread James Cloos
> "CS" == Christian Schmidt writes: CS> The current logic misunderstands the spec about CEA 18byte descriptors. CS> First, the spec doesn't state "detailed timing descriptors" but "18 byte CS> descriptors", so any data record could be stored, mixed timings and CS> other data, just as in the s

[PATCH] Fix wrong assumptions in cea_for_each_detailed_block v2

2011-11-14 Thread Adam Jackson
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 09:57 +0100, Christian Schmidt wrote: > The current logic misunderstands the spec about CEA 18byte descriptors. > First, the spec doesn't state "detailed timing descriptors" but "18 byte > descriptors", so any data record could be stored, mixed timings and > other data, just a

Re: [PATCH] Fix wrong assumptions in cea_for_each_detailed_block v2

2011-11-14 Thread Adam Jackson
On Sun, 2011-11-13 at 09:57 +0100, Christian Schmidt wrote: > The current logic misunderstands the spec about CEA 18byte descriptors. > First, the spec doesn't state "detailed timing descriptors" but "18 byte > descriptors", so any data record could be stored, mixed timings and > other data, just a

[PATCH] Fix wrong assumptions in cea_for_each_detailed_block v2

2011-11-13 Thread Christian Schmidt
The current logic misunderstands the spec about CEA 18byte descriptors. First, the spec doesn't state "detailed timing descriptors" but "18 byte descriptors", so any data record could be stored, mixed timings and other data, just as in the standard EDID. Second, the lower four bit of byte 3 of the

[PATCH] Fix wrong assumptions in cea_for_each_detailed_block v2

2011-11-13 Thread Christian Schmidt
The current logic misunderstands the spec about CEA 18byte descriptors. First, the spec doesn't state "detailed timing descriptors" but "18 byte descriptors", so any data record could be stored, mixed timings and other data, just as in the standard EDID. Second, the lower four bit of byte 3 of the