Tested-by: Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On 4/26/2022 2:21 PM, Abhinav Kumar wrote:
On 4/26/2022 1:52 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:46 PM Abhinav Kumar
<quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/26/2022 1:21 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
If we're unable to read the EDID for a display because it's corrupt /
bogus / invalid then we'll add a set of standard modes for the
display. When userspace looks at these modes it doesn't really have a
good concept for which mode to pick and it'll likely pick the highest
resolution one by default. That's probably not ideal because the modes
were purely guesses on the part of the Linux kernel.
Let's instead set 640x480 as the "preferred" mode when we have no
EDID.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
drm_dmt_modes array is sorted but you are also relying on this check to
eliminate the non-60fps modes
5611 if (drm_mode_vrefresh(ptr) > 61)
5612 continue;
I am not sure why we filter out the modes > 61 vrefresh.
If that check will remain this is okay.
If its not, its not reliable that the first mode will be 640x480@60
I suspect that the check will remain. I guess I could try to do
something fancier if people want, but I'd be interested in _what_
fancier thing I should do if so. Do we want the rule to remain that we
always prefer 640x480, or do we want to prefer the lowest resolution?
...do we want to prefer 60 Hz or the lowest refresh rate? Do we do
this only for DP (which explicitly calls out 640x480 @60Hz as the best
failsafe) or for everything?
For now, the way it's coded up seems reasonable (to me). It's the
lowest resolution _and_ it's 640x480 just because of the current
values of the table. I suspect that extra lower resolution failsafe
modes won't be added, but we can always change the rules here if/when
they are.
-Doug
Alright, agreed. The way the API is today, I dont see anything getting
broken with this.
So typically, as per spec, when a preferred mode is not set by the
sink, the first entry becomes the preferred mode.
This also aligns with that expectation.
So FWIW,
Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
We will test this one also out with our equipment, then give tested-by
tags.
Thanks
Abhinav
