|
Hi Jani Nikula Thanks for your suggestion and I have replied two comments below. -----Original Message----- On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, allen <allen.chen@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 byte 0 = 0x00, > byte 1 = 0x00, byte 2 = 0x00 and byte 3 = 0xFD > Second: read EDID bit 0 in feature support byte at address 18h = 1 > and detailed timing descriptor byte 10 = 0x04 > Third: if EDID bit 0 in feature support byte = 1 && > detailed timing descriptor byte 10 = 0x04 > then we can check byte 15, if bit 4 in byte 15 = 1 is support RB > if EDID bit 0 in feature support byte != 1 || > detailed timing descriptor byte 10 != 0x04, > then byte 15 can not be used > > The linux code is_rb function not follow the VESA's rule > > Signed-off-by: Allen Chen <allen.chen@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c > index f5926bf..e11e585 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c > @@ -93,6 +93,12 @@ struct detailed_mode_closure { > int modes; > }; > > +struct edid_support_rb_closure { > + struct edid *edid; > + bool valid_support_rb; > + bool support_rb; > +}; > + > #define LEVEL_DMT 0 > #define LEVEL_GTF 1 > #define LEVEL_GTF2 2 > @@ -2017,23 +2023,41 @@ struct drm_display_mode *drm_mode_find_dmt(struct drm_device *dev, > } > } > > +static bool > +is_display_descriptor(const u8 *r, u8 tag) > +{ > + return (!r[0] && !r[1] && !r[2] && r[3] == tag) ? true : false; > +} > + > static void > 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 = ""> > + struct edid_support_rb_closure *closure = data; > + struct edid *edid = closure->edid; > + > + if (is_display_descriptor(r, EDID_DETAIL_MONITOR_RANGE)) { > + if (edid->features & BIT(0) && r[10] == BIT(2)) { > + closure->valid_support_rb = true; > + closure->support_rb = (r[15] & 0x10) ? true : false; > + } > + } > } > > /* 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, > + .valid_support_rb = false, > + .support_rb = false, > + }; > + > 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.valid_support_rb) > + return closure.support_rb; Are you planning on extending the closure use somehow? I did not look up the spec, ==> iTE: as the picture below, from VESA E-EDID standard
if EDID bit 0 in feature support byte = 1 && detailed timing descriptor byte 10 = 0x04 then the CVT timing supported.
If CVT timing supported then we can check byte 15 bit 4 to determine whether the reduced-blanking timings suported or not. If CVT timing not supported then we can not use byte 15 to judge. but purely on the code changes alone, you could just move the edid->features bit check at this level, and not pass it down, and nothing would change. I.e. don't iterate the EDID at all if the bit is not set.
ð
iTE: We still have to check whether detailed timing descriptor byte 10 = 0x04 or not, so it is hard to check at this level You also don't actually use the distinction between valid_support_rb vs. support_rb for anything, so the closure just adds code. BR, Jani. > } > > return ((edid->input & DRM_EDID_INPUT_DIGITAL) != 0); -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center |
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
