On Tue, 16 Apr 2024, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 16.04.24 um 11:19 schrieb Jani Nikula:
>> Prefer the EDID iterators over drm_edid_find_extension() in
>> drm_edid_has_cta_extension(), even if this leads to more code. The key
>> is to use the same patterns as much as possible.
>
> Should this patch go before patch 4? That would limit the impact of the
> latter.
I can if you want, IMO not a big deal.
> Why is this instance different than the one in
> drm_find_displayid_extension()? Best regards Thomas
Overall I'd like to get rid of the function altogether, but I'm
undecided what the replacement interface towards drm_displayid.c should
be. Maybe expose the drm_edid_iter_* stuff? But I really don't want
anyone to export and start using them in drivers.
BR,
Jani.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
>> index c29f31dcc818..4b3ad42a8f95 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
>> @@ -4230,11 +4230,21 @@ static bool drm_edid_has_cta_extension(const struct drm_edid *drm_edid)
>> {
>> const struct displayid_block *block;
>> struct displayid_iter iter;
>> - int ext_index = 0;
>> + struct drm_edid_iter edid_iter;
>> + const u8 *ext;
>> bool found = false;
>>
>> /* Look for a top level CEA extension block */
>> - if (drm_edid_find_extension(drm_edid, CEA_EXT, &ext_index))
>> + drm_edid_iter_begin(drm_edid, &edid_iter);
>> + drm_edid_iter_for_each(ext, &edid_iter) {
>> + if (ext[0] == CEA_EXT) {
>> + found = true;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + drm_edid_iter_end(&edid_iter);
>> +
>> + if (found)
>> return true;
>>
>> /* CEA blocks can also be found embedded in a DisplayID block */
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
