> -----Original Message-----
> From: Intel-gfx <intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Ville Syrjala
> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2020 1:32 AM
> To: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 6/8] drm/edid: Add a FIXME about DispID CEA data block
> revision
>
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I don't understand what the DispID CEA data block revision means. The spec doesn't
> say. I guess some DispID must have a value of >= 3 in there or else we generally
> wouldn't even parse the CEA data blocks. Or does all this code actually not do
> anything?
This signifies the CTA extension revision (byte 1 of the block). As per the spec, seems like
Version 1 is legacy and 2 is deprecated. So version >=3 is checked here.
Refer section 7.3 of CTA-861-G
> Cc: Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c index
> 0369a54e3d32..fd9b724067a7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> @@ -3977,6 +3977,13 @@ cea_db_tag(const u8 *db) static int cea_revision(const
> u8 *cea) {
> + /*
> + * FIXME is this correct for the DispID variant?
> + * The DispID spec doesn't really specify whether
> + * this is the revision of the CEA extension or
> + * the DispID CEA data block. And the only value
> + * given as an example is 0.
> + */
> return cea[1];
> }
>
> --
> 2.24.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
