On Thu, 07 Sep 2023, Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quoting Jani Nikula (2023-09-01 07:20:34)
>> The DP CTS test for EDID last block checksum expects the checksum for
>> the last block, invalid or not. Skip the validity check.
>>
>> For the most part (*), the EDIDs returned by drm_get_edid() will be
>> valid anyway, and there's the CTS workaround to get the checksum for
>> completely invalid EDIDs. See commit 7948fe12d47a ("drm/msm/dp: return
>> correct edid checksum after corrupted edid checksum read").
>>
>> This lets us remove one user of drm_edid_block_valid() with hopes the
>> function can be removed altogether in the future.
>>
>> (*) drm_get_edid() ignores checksum errors on CTA extensions.
>>
>> Cc: Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Kuogee Hsieh <khsieh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Sean Paul <sean@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: linux-arm-msm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: freedreno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>
> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks; is that enough to merge? I can't claim I would have been able to
test this.
>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c
>> index 42d52510ffd4..86a8e06c7a60 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dp/dp_panel.c
>> @@ -289,26 +289,9 @@ int dp_panel_get_modes(struct dp_panel *dp_panel,
>>
>> static u8 dp_panel_get_edid_checksum(struct edid *edid)
>
> It would be nice to make 'edid' const here in another patch.
Sure.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
