On Tue, 13 Nov 2018, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2018, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:48:33 +0100
>> Christoph Niedermaier wrote:
>>
>>> A problem was found when EDID data sets for displays other than the
>>> provided samples were generated. The patch series has no
Hi Jon,
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> This seems reasonable, I guess; I've applied both. It seems to me, though,
> that this stuff is in the wrong place. Perhaps we should go one step
> further and move it to tools/ ?
I spoke to Carsten and his intention apparently was to
On Tue, 06 Nov 2018, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:48:33 +0100
> Christoph Niedermaier wrote:
>
>> A problem was found when EDID data sets for displays other
>> than the provided samples were generated. The patch series has
>> no effect on the provided samples that still match
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 09:48:33 +0100
Christoph Niedermaier wrote:
> A problem was found when EDID data sets for displays other
> than the provided samples were generated. The patch series has
> no effect on the provided samples that still match the data
> used in drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid_load.c.
>
A problem was found when EDID data sets for displays other
than the provided samples were generated. The patch series has
no effect on the provided samples that still match the data
used in drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid_load.c.
The provided samples use small values for XOFFSET, XPULSE,
YOFFSET and
