On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 14:46:51 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 06:16:52PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > It is fine for displays without audio functionality to not implement > > CEA extension in their EDID. Do not return an error in that case, > > instead return 0 as if there was a CEA extension with no audio or > > speaker block. > > > > This fixes half of bug fdo#107825: > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107825 > > > > Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Sean Paul <sean@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: David Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > --- linux-5.2.orig/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c 2019-08-30 17:57:38.199990995 +0200 > > +++ linux-5.2/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c 2019-08-30 18:04:36.840333834 +0200 > > @@ -4130,7 +4130,7 @@ int drm_edid_to_sad(struct edid *edid, s > > cea = drm_find_cea_extension(edid); > > if (!cea) { > > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("SAD: no CEA Extension found\n"); > > - return -ENOENT; > > + return 0; > > } > > Seems reasonable. Maybe the cea_revision<3 branches should alse return 0? I wasn't sure about that one, as I'm not familiar with this CEA extension thing. If revision < 3 means the data is invalid then returning an error is fine. If on the other hand revision < 3 simply means that the block types we are looking for were not defined back then yes returning 0 instead would be better. I'll do whatever developers more familiar with this topic think is better. > Either way > Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks, -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
