Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] drm/edid: Allow the querying/working with the panel ID from the EDID

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2021, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 3:05 AM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> > +{
>> > +     struct edid *edid;
>> > +     u32 val;
>> > +
>> > +     edid = drm_do_get_edid_blk0(drm_do_probe_ddc_edid, adapter, NULL, NULL);
>> > +
>> > +     /*
>> > +      * There are no manufacturer IDs of 0, so if there is a problem reading
>> > +      * the EDID then we'll just return 0.
>> > +      */
>> > +     if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(edid))
>> > +             return 0;
>> > +
>> > +     /*
>> > +      * In theory we could try to de-obfuscate this like edid_get_quirks()
>> > +      * does, but it's easier to just deal with a 32-bit number.
>>
>> Hmm, but is it, really? AFAICT this is just an internal representation
>> for a table, where it could just as well be stored in a struct that
>> could be just as compact now, but extensible later. You populate the
>> table via an encoding macro, then decode the id using a function - while
>> it could be in a format that's directly usable without the decode. If
>> suitably chosen, the struct could perhaps be reused between the quirks
>> code and your code.
>
> I'm not 100% sure, but I think you're suggesting having this function
> return a `struct edid_panel_id` or something like that. Is that right?
> Maybe that would look something like this?
>
> struct edid_panel_id {
>   char vendor[4];
>   u16 product_id;
> }
>
> ...or perhaps this (untested, but I think it works):
>
> struct edid_panel_id {
>   u16 vend_c1:5;
>   u16 vend_c2:5;
>   u16 vend_c3:5;
>   u16 product_id;
> }
>
> ...and then change `struct edid_quirk` to something like this:
>
> static const struct edid_quirk {
>   struct edid_panel_id panel_id;
>   u32 quirks;
> } ...
>
> Is that correct? There are a few downsides that I can see:
>
> a) I think the biggest downside is the inability compare with "==". I
> don't believe it's legal to compare structs with "==" in C. Yeah, we
> can use memcmp() but that feels more awkward to me.
>
> b) Unless you use the bitfield approach, it takes up more space. I
> know it's not a huge deal, but the format in the EDID is pretty much
> _forced_ to fit in 32-bits. The bitfield approach seems like it'd be
> more awkward than my encoding macros.

Sorry for the delayed response. Fair enough, let's go with the u32 for
now. It's not like we can't change this later.

BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center