Am 04.05.21 um 11:41 schrieb Ville Syrjälä: > On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 08:21:46PM +0200, Werner Sembach wrote: >> Add a missing check that could potentially lead to an unarchivable mode being >> validated. >> >> Signed-off-by: Werner Sembach <wse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> >> >From 54fa706f0a5f260a32af5d18b9622ceebb94c12e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Werner Sembach <wse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 14:42:36 +0200 >> Subject: [PATCH 2/4] Add missing check > I guess you did something a bit wonky with git format-patch/send-mail? I have no idea how that timestamp happened, I will check when sending my next patch ^^. >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c >> index 576d3d910d06..ce165ef28e88 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c >> @@ -1913,7 +1913,7 @@ intel_hdmi_mode_valid(struct drm_connector *connector, >> clock *= 2; >> } >> >> - if (drm_mode_is_420_only(&connector->display_info, mode)) >> + if (connector->ycbcr_420_allowed && drm_mode_is_420_only(&connector->display_info, mode)) > This one shouldn't be necessary. drm_mode_validate_ycbcr420() has > already checked it for us. I wasn't aware of drm_mode_validate_ycbcr420, thanks for the hint. In the "420_also"-patch I change drm_mode_is_420_only to drm_mode_is_420 (helper function: _only + _also), which is not checked by drm_mode_validate_ycbcr420. I can add this check to that patch, since its only required then. >> clock /= 2; >> >> status = intel_hdmi_mode_clock_valid(hdmi, clock, has_hdmi_sink); >> -- >> 2.25.1 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
