On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 6:48 AM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2023, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Aug 2023, Alex Hung <alex.hung@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 2023-08-22 06:01, Jani Nikula wrote: > >>> Over the past years I've been trying to unify the override and firmware > >>> EDID handling as well as EDID property updates. It won't work if drivers > >>> do their own random things. > >> Let's check how to replace these references by appropriate ones or fork > >> the function as reverting these patches causes regressions. > > > > I think the fundamental problem you have is conflating connector forcing > > with EDID override. They're orthogonal. The .force callback has no > > business basing the decisions on connector->edid_override. Force is > > force, override is override. > > > > The driver isn't even supposed to know or care if the EDID originates > > from the firmware loader or override EDID debugfs. drm_get_edid() will > > handle that for you transparently. It'll return the EDID, and you > > shouldn't look at connector->edid_blob_ptr either. Using that will make > > future work in drm_edid.c harder. > > > > You can't fix that with minor tweaks. I think you'll be better off > > starting from scratch. > > > > Also, connector->edid_override is debugfs. You actually can change the > > behaviour. If your userspace, whatever it is, has been written to assume > > connector forcing if EDID override is set, you *do* have to fix that, > > and set both. > > Any updates on fixing this, or shall we proceed with the reverts? What is the goal of the reverts? I don't disagree that we may be using the interfaces wrong, but reverting them will regess functionality in the driver. Alex
