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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A44F1C43331 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:42:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E5A02178F for ; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 15:42:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387412AbfKGPmP (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:42:15 -0500 Received: from mga12.intel.com ([192.55.52.136]:36427 "EHLO mga12.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726231AbfKGPmP (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:42:15 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Nov 2019 07:42:14 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,278,1569308400"; d="scan'208";a="201426943" Received: from stinkbox.fi.intel.com (HELO stinkbox) ([10.237.72.174]) by fmsmga007.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 07 Nov 2019 07:42:10 -0800 Received: by stinkbox (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:42:09 +0200 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:42:09 +0200 From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= To: allen Cc: Jau-Chih Tseng , Maxime Ripard , open list , "open list:DRM DRIVERS" , David Airlie , Pi-Hsun Shih , Sean Paul Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/edid: fixup EDID 1.3 and 1.4 judge reduced-blanking timings logic Message-ID: <20191107154209.GC1208@intel.com> References: <1572856969-12115-1-git-send-email-allen.chen@ite.com.tw> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1572856969-12115-1-git-send-email-allen.chen@ite.com.tw> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 04:42:49PM +0800, allen wrote: > According to VESA ENHANCED EXTENDED DISPLAY IDENTIFICATION DATA STANDARD > (Defines EDID Structure Version 1, Revision 4) page: 39 > How to determine whether the monitor support RB timing or not? > EDID 1.4 > First: read detailed timing descriptor and make sure byte0 = 0, > byte1 = 0, byte2 = 0 and byte3 = 0xFD That should probably be some new function: bool is_display_descriptor(const u8 *desc, u8 tag); is_display_descriptor(EDID_DETAIL_MONITOR_RANGE) or something along those lines We don't seem to check that in most places so should be rolled out all over. The usage of struct detailed_timing all over also makes everything rather confusing. > Second: read detailed timing descriptor byte10 = 0x04 and > EDID byte18h bit0 = 1 Indicates CVT support. Should give these things real names so one wouldn't have to decode by hand. > Third: if EDID byte18h bit0 == 1 && byte10 == 0x04, > then we can check byte15, if byte15 bit4 =1 is support RB > if EDID byte18h bit0 != 1 || byte10 != 0x04, > then byte15 can not be used > > The linux code is_rb function not follow the VESA's rule > > EDID 1.3 > LCD flat panels do not require long blanking intervals as a retrace > period so default support reduced-blanking timings. > > Signed-off-by: Allen Chen > Reported-by: kbuild test robot > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c > index e5e7e65..9b67b80 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c > @@ -93,6 +93,11 @@ struct detailed_mode_closure { > int modes; > }; > > +struct edid_support_rb_closure { > + struct edid *edid; > + s8 support_rb; bool > +}; > + > #define LEVEL_DMT 0 > #define LEVEL_GTF 1 > #define LEVEL_GTF2 2 > @@ -2018,22 +2023,31 @@ struct drm_display_mode *drm_mode_find_dmt(struct drm_device *dev, > is_rb(struct detailed_timing *t, void *data) > { > u8 *r = (u8 *)t; > - if (r[3] == EDID_DETAIL_MONITOR_RANGE) > - if (r[15] & 0x10) > - *(bool *)data = true; > + struct edid_support_rb_closure *closure = data; > + struct edid *edid = closure->edid; > + > + if (!r[0] && !r[1] && !r[2] && r[3] == EDID_DETAIL_MONITOR_RANGE) { > + if (edid->features & BIT(0) && r[10] == BIT(2)) > + closure->support_rb = (r[15] & 0x10) ? 1 : 0; With the bool the ternary operator is not needed. Also should maybe be |= in case we have multiple range descriptors? Not sure that is legal. > + } > } > > /* EDID 1.4 defines this explicitly. For EDID 1.3, we guess, badly. */ > static bool > drm_monitor_supports_rb(struct edid *edid) > { > + struct edid_support_rb_closure closure = { > + .edid = edid, > + .support_rb = -1, > + }; > + > if (edid->revision >= 4) { > - bool ret = false; > - drm_for_each_detailed_block((u8 *)edid, is_rb, &ret); > - return ret; > + drm_for_each_detailed_block((u8 *)edid, is_rb, &closure); > + if (closure.support_rb >= 0) > + return closure.support_rb; > } > > - return ((edid->input & DRM_EDID_INPUT_DIGITAL) != 0); > + return true; Why are we now assuming rb for all pre 1.4 EDIDs? > } > > static void > -- > 1.9.1 > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel -- Ville Syrjälä Intel