On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 3:02 PM Ville Syrjala
<ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I don't understand what the DispID CEA data block revision
> means. The spec doesn't say. I guess some DispID must have
> a value of >= 3 in there or else we generally wouldn't
> even parse the CEA data blocks. Or does all this code
> actually not do anything?
>
> Cc: Andres Rodriguez <andresx7@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> index 0369a54e3d32..fd9b724067a7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
> @@ -3977,6 +3977,13 @@ cea_db_tag(const u8 *db)
> static int
> cea_revision(const u8 *cea)
> {
> + /*
> + * FIXME is this correct for the DispID variant?
> + * The DispID spec doesn't really specify whether
> + * this is the revision of the CEA extension or
> + * the DispID CEA data block. And the only value
> + * given as an example is 0.
> + */
Same comment as the previous patch regarding the comment formatting.
Alex
> return cea[1];
> }
>
> --
> 2.24.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
