From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jani.nikula@linux.intel.com (Jani Nikula) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:05:31 +0200 Subject: [PATCH V7 3/4] drm/bridge: Add driver for GE B850v3 LVDS/DP++ Bridge In-Reply-To: <20170128141646.GA21291@collabora.com> References: <4232c88a99f44a24287d04d74b891e2eb139864c.1483301745.git.peter.senna@collabora.com> <759f96e2-43da-45ba-cf8d-55bc1f6e8442@codeaurora.org> <20170128141646.GA21291@collabora.com> Message-ID: <877f5ciilg.fsf@intel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, 28 Jan 2017, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 01:18:47PM +0530, Archit Taneja wrote: > Hi Archit, > > Thank you for the comments! > > [...] >> > + total_size = (block[EDID_EXT_BLOCK_CNT] + 1) * EDID_LENGTH; >> > + if (total_size > EDID_LENGTH) { >> > + kfree(block); >> > + block = kmalloc(total_size, GFP_KERNEL); >> > + if (!block) >> > + return NULL; >> > + >> > + /* Yes, read the entire buffer, and do not skip the first >> > + * EDID_LENGTH bytes. >> > + */ >> >> Is this the reason why you aren't using drm_do_get_edid()? > > Yes, for some hw specific reason, it is necessary to read the entire > EDID buffer starting from 0, not block by block. Hrmh, I'm planning on moving the edid override and firmware edid mechanisms at the drm_do_get_edid() level to be able to truly and transparently use a different edid. Currently, they're only used for modes, really, and lead to some info retrieved from overrides, some from the real edid. This kind of hacks will bypass the override/firmware edid mechanisms then too. :( BR, Jani. > > [...] > > I fixed all your other suggestions. Thank you! > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center