Re: [PATCH 11/17] drm/i915: Update the EDID automated compliance test function

Paulo Zanoni
2014-12-17T16:25:42Z

2014-12-10 21:53 GMT-02:00 Todd Previte <tprevite@gmail.com>:
> Updates the EDID compliance test function to perform the EDID read as
> required by the tests. This read needs to take place in the kernel for
> reasons of speed and efficiency. The results of the EDID read are handed
> off to userspace so that the remainder of the test can be conducted there.
>
> V2:
> - Addressed mailing list feedback
> - Removed excess debug messages
> - Removed extraneous comments
> - Fixed formatting issues (line length > 80)
> - Updated the debug message in compute_edid_checksum to output hex values
> instead of decimal
>
> Signed-off-by: Todd Previte <tprevite@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> index b6f5a72..2a13124 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dp.c
> @@ -40,6 +40,13 @@
>
> #define DP_LINK_CHECK_TIMEOUT (10 * 1000)
>
> +/* Compliance test status bits */
> +#define INTEL_DP_EDID_OK (0<<0)
> +#define INTEL_DP_EDID_CORRUPT (1<<0)
> +#define INTEL_DP_RESOLUTION_PREFERRED (1<<2)
> +#define INTEL_DP_RESOLUTION_STANDARD (1<<3)
> +#define INTEL_DP_RESOLUTION_FAILSAFE (1<<4)
> +
> struct dp_link_dpll {
> int link_bw;
> struct dpll dpll;
> @@ -3761,9 +3768,72 @@ static uint8_t intel_dp_autotest_video_pattern(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> return test_result;
> }
>
> +static bool intel_dp_compute_edid_checksum(uint8_t *edid_data,
> + uint8_t *edid_checksum)
> +{
> + uint32_t byte_total = 0;
> + uint8_t i = 0;
> + bool edid_ok = true;
> +
> + /* Don't include last byte (the checksum) in the computation */
> + for (i = 0; i < EDID_LENGTH - 2; i++)

Shouldn't this be "i < EDID_LENGHT - 1"?

> + byte_total += edid_data[i];
> +
> + *edid_checksum = 256 - (byte_total % 256);
> +
> + if (*edid_checksum != edid_data[EDID_LENGTH - 1]) {
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Invalid EDID checksum %02x, should be %02x\n",
> + edid_data[EDID_LENGTH - 40 - 1], *edid_checksum);
> + edid_ok = false;
> + }
> +
> + return edid_ok;
> +}
> +
> static uint8_t intel_dp_autotest_edid(struct intel_dp *intel_dp)
> {
> - uint8_t test_result = DP_TEST_NAK;
> + struct drm_connector *connector = &intel_dp->attached_connector->base;
> + struct i2c_adapter *adapter = &intel_dp->aux.ddc;
> + struct edid *edid_read = NULL;
> + uint8_t *edid_data = NULL;
> + uint8_t test_result = DP_TEST_NAK, checksum = 0;
> + uint32_t ret = 0;
> +
> + intel_dp->aux.i2c_nack_count = 0;
> + intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count = 0;
> +
> + edid_read = drm_get_edid(connector, adapter);
> +
> + if (edid_read == NULL) {
> + /* Check for NACKs/DEFERs, use failsafe if detected
> + (DP CTS 1.2 Core Rev 1.1, 4.2.2.4, 4.2.2.5) */
> + if (intel_dp->aux.i2c_nack_count > 0 ||
> + intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count > 0)
> + DRM_DEBUG_KMS("EDID read had %d NACKs, %d DEFERs\n",
> + intel_dp->aux.i2c_nack_count,
> + intel_dp->aux.i2c_defer_count);

Don't we need to use these _count values somehow, instead of just
printing them in the logs?

Everything else looks fine.

> + intel_dp->compliance_test_data = INTEL_DP_EDID_CORRUPT |
> + INTEL_DP_RESOLUTION_FAILSAFE;
> + } else {
> + edid_data = (uint8_t *) edid_read;
> +
> + if (intel_dp_compute_edid_checksum(edid_data, &checksum)) {
> + ret = drm_dp_dpcd_write(&intel_dp->aux,
> + DP_TEST_EDID_CHECKSUM,
> + &edid_read->checksum, 1);
> + test_result = DP_TEST_ACK |
> + DP_TEST_EDID_CHECKSUM_WRITE;
> + intel_dp->compliance_test_data =
> + INTEL_DP_EDID_OK |
> + INTEL_DP_RESOLUTION_PREFERRED;
> + } else {
> + /* Invalid checksum - EDID corruption detection */
> + intel_dp->compliance_test_data =
> + INTEL_DP_EDID_CORRUPT |
> + INTEL_DP_RESOLUTION_FAILSAFE;
> + }
> + }
> +
> return test_result;
> }
>
> --
> 1.9.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

--
Paulo Zanoni