From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Tygier Subject: Re: [PATCH] DRM: ignore invalid EDID extensions Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:42:47 +0100 Message-ID: <4C9A7857.2070004@yahoo.co.uk> References: <4C992B73.5040605@yahoo.co.uk> <1285189149.4364.3458.camel@atropine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E4C89E8FE for ; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:42:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1285189149.4364.3458.camel@atropine> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On 22/09/10 21:59, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 23:02 +0100, Sam Tygier wrote: >> Currently an invalid EDID extension will cause the whole EDID to be >> considered invalid. Instead just drop the extension, and return the >> valid base block. The base block is modified to not claim to have >> extensions, and update the checksum. > > This does not appear to be what your patch does. I mean, yes, if > there's only one extension block, that's what it does, but if there's > more than one... I could modify it to skip the only invalid extension blocks. As my monitor only claims to have 1 extension block, i could not test this properly. I also spotted that I should make sure that my fix is not run when the base block fails the checksum 4 times. May it should be put within the for loop, replacing "goto carp;". >> For my EIZO S2242W the base block is fine, but the extension block is >> all zeros. Without this patch I get no X and no VTs. > > I suspect what's actually happening there is that we're failing to get > the extension block, not that it's being returned as zeros. Could this be fixed? Anything I could try? > Also, we shouldn't be converting "checksum failure" to "display > disconnected". That's the real bug here. In my case it would still need to return base block, as that correctly contains all the modes and stuff. Thanks Sam