On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 09:42:11AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> 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! :)
Ack
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
