Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/edid: fix CEA extension byte #3 parsing

2022-03-24 Thread Jani Nikula
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:04:38PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> Only an EDID CEA extension has byte #3, while the CTA DisplayID Data >> Block does not. Don't interpret bogus data for color formats. > > I think what we might want eventually is a cleaner

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/edid: fix CEA extension byte #3 parsing

2022-03-23 Thread Jani Nikula
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:04:38PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> Only an EDID CEA extension has byte #3, while the CTA DisplayID Data >> Block does not. Don't interpret bogus data for color formats. > > I think what we might want eventually is a cleaner

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/edid: fix CEA extension byte #3 parsing

2022-03-23 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:04:38PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > Only an EDID CEA extension has byte #3, while the CTA DisplayID Data > Block does not. Don't interpret bogus data for color formats. I think what we might want eventually is a cleaner split between the CTA data blocks vs. the rest of

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/edid: fix CEA extension byte #3 parsing

2022-03-23 Thread Jani Nikula
Only an EDID CEA extension has byte #3, while the CTA DisplayID Data Block does not. Don't interpret bogus data for color formats. For most displays it's probably an unlikely scenario you'd have a CTA DisplayID Data Block without a CEA extension, but they do exist. Fixes: e28ad544f462