On Fri, 11 Nov 2022, Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 1:39 PM Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 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> > > I've given this patch a bunch of time because it wasn't urgent, but > seems like it could be about time to land. I'll plan to land it next > Monday or Tuesday unless anyone has any other comments. Ack, it's benign enough. BR, Jani. > > Thanks! > > -Doug -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
