From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D6EEC433FE for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 19:36:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39A410E051; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 19:36:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D5CC10E051; Wed, 19 Oct 2022 19:36:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1666208167; x=1697744167; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=gZB/GY6//sUmGaJp2Ij2hqDFcvNmjUwGmIKpPm4Ke+M=; b=UDyk1L2P43i1npdi44FQyNBsgtnRtAyzsI1gFhkWiDMBIbePxSgQJrPI Z/vU+ARG4OHIaXJsHhrhh7B016iRoZoM6YXqkeo5OfkcX8tPUM5+7sYkt aUglKIxsMSWQuN5e6sCxckL6yzn9ghXfmqc5qXmWYY1B9etnI9j0KMaC+ AmTkP7Uk+YZHTMEVwjEGyPHu2+2Kss+ei5WTGeOTRrgxAOrc0rlR5Hs9Q BI/bpZRSgHryh9ZOwBO36+BN0ksUT9FJg2ITBQh18JyekOTl4osRasN6A kv8jzzTu9ehkdPi9PjmP6qagQ1K+mPBoleHZMwpJJXIca79c9lB+bZ9QC Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10505"; a="306503365" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.95,196,1661842800"; d="scan'208";a="306503365" Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Oct 2022 12:36:06 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10505"; a="874587406" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.95,196,1661842800"; d="scan'208";a="874587406" Received: from stinkpipe.fi.intel.com (HELO stinkbox) ([10.237.72.191]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 2022 12:36:04 -0700 Received: by stinkbox (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 19 Oct 2022 22:36:03 +0300 Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 22:36:03 +0300 From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= To: Jani Nikula Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/15] drm/i915/hdmi: stop using connector->override_edid Message-ID: References: <98759771776c57e31c1e673dca651d2892738f63.1665496046.git.jani.nikula@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <98759771776c57e31c1e673dca651d2892738f63.1665496046.git.jani.nikula@intel.com> X-Patchwork-Hint: comment X-BeenThere: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Direct Rendering Infrastructure - Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 04:49:36PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > The connector->override_edid flag is strictly for EDID override debugfs > management, and drivers have no business using it. > > The check for override_edid was added in commit 301906290553 ("drm/i915: > Ignore TMDS clock limit for DP++ when EDID override is set") to > facilitate mode list cross-checking against modes in override EDID when > the connector in question isn't even connected. The dual mode detect > fallback would do VBT based limiting in this case. > > Instead of override EDID, check for connector forcing in the fallback. > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c | 6 ++---- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c > index a332eaac86cd..878a65c887f7 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_hdmi.c > @@ -2374,10 +2374,8 @@ intel_hdmi_dp_dual_mode_detect(struct drm_connector *connector) > * if the port is a dual mode capable DP port. > */ > if (type == DRM_DP_DUAL_MODE_UNKNOWN) { > - /* An overridden EDID imply that we want this port for testing. > - * Make sure not to set limits for that port. > - */ > - if (!connector->override_edid && > + if (connector->force != DRM_FORCE_ON && > + connector->force != DRM_FORCE_ON_DIGITAL && I don't think we can get here with force==OFF, so could simply to just if (!connector->force && ... which might even be less confusing either way. At least I'm getting confused thinking we'd want to assume the presence of the adaptor with force==OFF. > intel_bios_is_port_dp_dual_mode(dev_priv, port)) { > drm_dbg_kms(&dev_priv->drm, > "Assuming DP dual mode adaptor presence based on VBT\n"); > -- > 2.34.1 -- Ville Syrjälä Intel