From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757618AbZBYBot (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:44:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751981AbZBYBok (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:44:40 -0500 Received: from outbound-mail-128.bluehost.com ([67.222.38.28]:56167 "HELO outbound-mail-128.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751856AbZBYBok (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:44:40 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id:X-Identified-User; b=pjxIoJrp5PUgBv80MTzhQajWekodTvJqcRqwKErw5CVWiswoBeoHtAvwxm0erzoZb7bRiQvsW75dkKpklPCe1lYUw8O9JAqiZBjjZ9setxEGaefDv1A5gOe8GHSudi+0; From: Jesse Barnes To: Kyle McMartin Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: edid revision 0 is valid Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:44:30 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.0 (Linux/2.6.27-11-generic; KDE/4.2.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: airlied@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, marko.ristola@kolumbus.fi References: <20090225013153.GC6690@bombadil.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20090225013153.GC6690@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200902241744.30556.jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> X-Identified-User: {642:box128.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 75.111.27.49 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, February 24, 2009 5:31:53 pm Kyle McMartin wrote: > From: Kyle McMartin > > edid->revision == 0 should be valid (at least, so the error message > indicates. :) and wikipedia seems to indicate that EDID 1.0 existed. > > We can dump the entire check, since edid->revision is a u8, so > it can't ever be less than 0. > > Marko reports in RH bz#476735 that his monitor claims to be > EDID 1.0, and therefore hits the check and is stuck at 800x600 because > of it. > > Reported-by: Marko Ristola > Signed-off-by: Kyle McMartin Heh, yeah this makes the code correct *and* match the message. Thanks. Acked-by: Jesse Barnes -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center