From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F20FCEBF97 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 11:33:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF2210EC17; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 11:33:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: gabe.freedesktop.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="fz97s7CH"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.12]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6CB910E1DB for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 11:33:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1727436801; x=1758972801; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=XiGaGMDzMCROBQtygORtL0L79RY6kNF9LzCsfsnLfRE=; b=fz97s7CHRK8GQzfGe482wZYtsDTyxVMITwrjw8hSdhEFRe2GRDyN+AfA I+Wwe0L02hiy0Ha48YkFa9dDyh0m8Xg8gWzMSAewbslvG7X1vwqU72YL1 W5U+SKqNGDaoBJdfqHa93iZfuXrvkDM0GA2+bF5u+dlW/ApZAAZBXHA9X 3T/ZmpQHWrqVQ9ia8CqbjBYwcR7lwJalwWf6N8ebgMdXowp3pZay2xT4+ lfn59HntDIzMbvx9qhG/qXKpnUWJYlaIr1/mhp7zvcHBjGx8g1E+35Hs/ dndPY/D1EPuWhRJ96FSd5jpMpL3tjSopCmoxVseaO6k6w+2eRo9EfybDR g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 6nqGPe7NTWGEzvYrqGnDrw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: wRxbvsTjR9K0OIAq7rtltQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11207"; a="37958152" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,158,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="37958152" Received: from orviesa001.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.141]) by orvoesa104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Sep 2024 04:33:21 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: FvqnjWMkS7mW35SoTdhHmQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 4pBl50f9TN2GCYO+dGacGw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,158,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="109999360" Received: from tassilo.jf.intel.com (HELO tassilo) ([10.54.38.190]) by smtpauth.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Sep 2024 04:33:21 -0700 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 04:33:15 -0700 From: Andi Kleen To: Jani Nikula Cc: maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com, mripard@kernel.org, tzimmermann@suse.de, airlied@gmail.com, simona@ffwll.ch, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] drm: Print bad EDID notices less often Message-ID: References: <20240926180150.2674763-1-ak@linux.intel.com> <87frplzboj.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87frplzboj.fsf@intel.com> X-BeenThere: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Direct Rendering Infrastructure - Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 12:30:04PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2024, Andi Kleen wrote: > > I have an old monitor that reports a zero EDID block, which results in a > > warning message. This happens on every screen save cycle, and maybe in > > some other situations, and over time the whole kernel log gets filled > > with these redundant messages. > > > > Make most of these prints conditional on bad_edid_count like other verbose EDID > > messages. > > Honestly I think merging this would be counter-productive to addressing > the issue properly. You think it's a problem on the host side, not the monitor side? > > Please just give me the chance to look into it. > > Is your zero EDID block the base block or an extension block? It's an extension block I believe. -Andi