Hi Doug
On 10/24/2022 1:28 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 2:18 PM Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Doug
On 10/21/2022 1:07 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
If we fail to get a valid panel ID in drm_edid_get_panel_id() we'd
like to see the EDID that was read so we have a chance of
understanding what's wrong. There's already a function for that, so
let's call it in the error case.
NOTE: edid_block_read() has a retry loop in it, so actually we'll only
print the block read back from the final attempt. This still seems
better than nothing.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Instead of checkinf for edid_block_status_valid() on the base_block, do
you want to use drm_edid_block_valid() instead?
That way you get the edid_block_dump() for free if it was invalid.
I can... ...but it feels a bit awkward and maybe not quite how the
functions were intended to work together?
One thing I notice is that if I call drm_edid_block_valid() I'm doing
a bunch of duplicate work that already happened in edid_block_read(),
which already calls edid_block_check() and handles fixing headers. I
guess also if I call drm_edid_block_valid() then I should ignore the
"status" return value of edid_block_read() because we don't need to
pass it anywhere (because the work is re-done in
drm_edid_block_valid()).
So I guess I'm happy to do a v2 like that if everyone likes it better,
but to me it feels a little weird.
-Doug
Alright, agreed. There is some duplication of code happening if we use
drm_edid_block_valid(). I had suggested that because it has inherent
support for dumping the bad EDID.
In that case, this change LGTM, because in principle you are doing the
same thing as _drm_do_get_edid() (with the only difference being here we
read only the base block as opposed to the full EDID there).
Hence,
Reviewed-by: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
