On Wed, 04 Dec 2024, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 04:25:58PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Dec 2024, Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > + drm_edid = drm_bridge_edid_read(bridge, connector);
>> > + if (!drm_edid_valid(drm_edid)) {
>>
>> What's the case this check is for?
>>
>> My preference would be that bridge->funcs->edid_read() uses
>> drm_edid_read*() family of functions that do the checks and return the
>> EDID.
>>
>> There are some cases that just allocate a blob and return it. Would be
>> nice if they could be converted, but in the mean time could use
>> drm_edid_valid() right there. Additional validity checks are redundant.
>
> This was c&p from drm_bridge_connector_get_modes_edid(). If you think
> that the check is redundant, could you please send a patch dropping the
> check?
Mmmh. It's just scary to *remove* them, and that's the reason I didn't
want you to add one in the first place! :)
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
