On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 01:07:28PM +0100, Egbert Eich wrote:
> Ville Syrj?l? writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 05:22:55AM -0500, Egbert Eich wrote:
> > > There are displays which announce EDID extension blocks in the
> > > Extension Flag of the EDID base block although they are not EDDC
> > >
Ville Syrj?l? writes:
>
> Me neither. I just figured it might reduce the chance of false
> positives. But if you say that can't happen, I'll take your word
> for it.
>
> > Regarding memcmp() you are definitely right, I will change the code.
> >
> > >
> > > Also the comment is somehow
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 05:22:55AM -0500, Egbert Eich wrote:
> There are displays which announce EDID extension blocks in the
> Extension Flag of the EDID base block although they are not EDDC
> capable (ie. take a segment address at I2C slave address 0x30).
> We test this by looking for an EDID he
Ville Syrj?l? writes:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 05:22:55AM -0500, Egbert Eich wrote:
> > There are displays which announce EDID extension blocks in the
> > Extension Flag of the EDID base block although they are not EDDC
> > capable (ie. take a segment address at I2C slave address 0x30).
> > W
Ville Syrj?l? writes:
>
> Me neither. I just figured it might reduce the chance of false
> positives. But if you say that can't happen, I'll take your word
> for it.
>
> > Regarding memcmp() you are definitely right, I will change the code.
> >
> > >
> > > Also the comment is somehow
There are displays which announce EDID extension blocks in the
Extension Flag of the EDID base block although they are not EDDC
capable (ie. take a segment address at I2C slave address 0x30).
We test this by looking for an EDID header which is only possible
in the base block.
If the segment address
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 01:07:28PM +0100, Egbert Eich wrote:
> Ville Syrj�l� writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 05:22:55AM -0500, Egbert Eich wrote:
> > > There are displays which announce EDID extension blocks in the
> > > Extension Flag of the EDID base block although they are not EDDC
> > >
Ville Syrj?l? writes:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 05:22:55AM -0500, Egbert Eich wrote:
> > There are displays which announce EDID extension blocks in the
> > Extension Flag of the EDID base block although they are not EDDC
> > capable (ie. take a segment address at I2C slave address 0x30).
> > W
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 05:22:55AM -0500, Egbert Eich wrote:
> There are displays which announce EDID extension blocks in the
> Extension Flag of the EDID base block although they are not EDDC
> capable (ie. take a segment address at I2C slave address 0x30).
> We test this by looking for an EDID he
There are displays which announce EDID extension blocks in the
Extension Flag of the EDID base block although they are not EDDC
capable (ie. take a segment address at I2C slave address 0x30).
We test this by looking for an EDID header which is only possible
in the base block.
If the segment address
10 matches
Mail list logo
