I thought I remembered an issue with this but looked up the previous emails,
and it looks like that this change actually should be safe!
Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, 2021-09-09 at 15:51 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Extend the use of extended receiver cap at 0x2200 to cover
> MAIN_LINK_CHANNEL_CODING_CAP in 0x2206, in case an implementation hides
> the DP 2.0 128b/132b channel encoding cap.
>
> v2: Extend to DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE (Ville)
>
> Cc: Lyude Paul <lyude@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
> index 9b2a2961fca8..2e74b02ed96b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
> @@ -608,7 +608,7 @@ static u8 drm_dp_downstream_port_count(const u8
> dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE])
> static int drm_dp_read_extended_dpcd_caps(struct drm_dp_aux *aux,
> u8 dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE])
> {
> - u8 dpcd_ext[6];
> + u8 dpcd_ext[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE];
> int ret;
>
> /*
--
Cheers,
Lyude Paul (she/her)
Software Engineer at Red Hat
