On 09/14/17 13:33, Jose Abreu wrote: > Running CEC 1.4 compliance test we get the following error on test > 11.1.6.2: "ERROR: The DUT did not broadcast a > <Report Physical Address> message to the unregistered device." > > Fix this by letting GIVE_PHYSICAL_ADDR message respond to unregistered > device. > > With this fix we pass CEC 1.4 official compliance. > > Signed-off-by: Jose Abreu <joabreu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Joao Pinto <jpinto@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/media/cec/cec-adap.c | 7 +++++-- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/media/cec/cec-adap.c b/drivers/media/cec/cec-adap.c > index dd769e4..48482aa 100644 > --- a/drivers/media/cec/cec-adap.c > +++ b/drivers/media/cec/cec-adap.c > @@ -1797,9 +1797,12 @@ static int cec_receive_notify(struct cec_adapter *adap, struct cec_msg *msg, > case CEC_MSG_GIVE_DEVICE_VENDOR_ID: > case CEC_MSG_ABORT: > case CEC_MSG_GIVE_DEVICE_POWER_STATUS: > - case CEC_MSG_GIVE_PHYSICAL_ADDR: > case CEC_MSG_GIVE_OSD_NAME: > case CEC_MSG_GIVE_FEATURES: > + if (from_unregistered) This should be (!adap->passthrough && from_unregistered) > + return 0; Actually, CEC_MSG_GIVE_DEVICE_VENDOR_ID and CEC_MSG_GIVE_FEATURES fall in the same category as CEC_MSG_GIVE_PHYSICAL_ADDR. I.e. these are directed messages but the reply is a broadcast message. All three can be sent by an unregistered device. It's a good idea to mention this here. I.e. something like: /* These messages reply with a directed message, so ignore if the initiator is Unregistered */ > + /* Fall through */ > + case CEC_MSG_GIVE_PHYSICAL_ADDR: > /* > * Skip processing these messages if the passthrough mode > * is on. > @@ -1807,7 +1810,7 @@ static int cec_receive_notify(struct cec_adapter *adap, struct cec_msg *msg, > if (adap->passthrough) > goto skip_processing; > /* Ignore if addressing is wrong */ > - if (is_broadcast || from_unregistered) > + if (is_broadcast) > return 0; > break; > > Good catch, if you can make a v2 then I'll get this in for 4.14. Not bad, just one obscure compliance error! Regards, Hans
