On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 22:42 +0100, Sam Tygier wrote: > On 22/09/10 21:59, Adam Jackson wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 23:02 +0100, Sam Tygier wrote: > >> Currently an invalid EDID extension will cause the whole EDID to be > >> considered invalid. Instead just drop the extension, and return the > >> valid base block. The base block is modified to not claim to have > >> extensions, and update the checksum. > > > > This does not appear to be what your patch does. I mean, yes, if > > there's only one extension block, that's what it does, but if there's > > more than one... > > I could modify it to skip the only invalid extension blocks. As my > monitor only claims to have 1 extension block, i could not test this > properly. I also spotted that I should make sure that my fix is not > run when the base block fails the checksum 4 times. May it should be > put within the for loop, replacing "goto carp;". Yeah, I hate to just drop extension blocks, but it's better than the alternative. They're optional for a reason I suppose. > >> For my EIZO S2242W the base block is fine, but the extension block is > >> all zeros. Without this patch I get no X and no VTs. > > > > I suspect what's actually happening there is that we're failing to get > > the extension block, not that it's being returned as zeros. > > Could this be fixed? Anything I could try? Depends on what your driver is, I suspect. Did it ever work? - ajax
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
