Hi,
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 3:05 AM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > +{
> > + struct edid *edid;
> > + u32 val;
> > +
> > + edid = drm_do_get_edid_blk0(drm_do_probe_ddc_edid, adapter, NULL, NULL);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * There are no manufacturer IDs of 0, so if there is a problem reading
> > + * the EDID then we'll just return 0.
> > + */
> > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(edid))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * In theory we could try to de-obfuscate this like edid_get_quirks()
> > + * does, but it's easier to just deal with a 32-bit number.
>
> Hmm, but is it, really? AFAICT this is just an internal representation
> for a table, where it could just as well be stored in a struct that
> could be just as compact now, but extensible later. You populate the
> table via an encoding macro, then decode the id using a function - while
> it could be in a format that's directly usable without the decode. If
> suitably chosen, the struct could perhaps be reused between the quirks
> code and your code.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think you're suggesting having this function
return a `struct edid_panel_id` or something like that. Is that right?
Maybe that would look something like this?
struct edid_panel_id {
char vendor[4];
u16 product_id;
}
...or perhaps this (untested, but I think it works):
struct edid_panel_id {
u16 vend_c1:5;
u16 vend_c2:5;
u16 vend_c3:5;
u16 product_id;
}
...and then change `struct edid_quirk` to something like this:
static const struct edid_quirk {
struct edid_panel_id panel_id;
u32 quirks;
} ...
Is that correct? There are a few downsides that I can see:
a) I think the biggest downside is the inability compare with "==". I
don't believe it's legal to compare structs with "==" in C. Yeah, we
can use memcmp() but that feels more awkward to me.
b) Unless you use the bitfield approach, it takes up more space. I
know it's not a huge deal, but the format in the EDID is pretty much
_forced_ to fit in 32-bits. The bitfield approach seems like it'd be
more awkward than my encoding macros.
-Doug
