Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Jani Nikula <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] drm/edid: Support type 7 timings | Date | Wed, 19 Jan 2022 11:35:06 +0200 |
| |
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022, Yaroslav Bolyukin <iam@lach.pw> wrote: > Per VESA DisplayID Standard v2.0: Type VII Timing – Detailed Timing Data > > Definitions were already provided as type I, but not used
Thanks for the patch. Functionally I think it looks correct, and something we'll want. I do have some nitpicks though, comments inline.
For the next version, please consider Cc'ing the intel-gfx list as well to get our CI results on it too.
BR, Jani.
> > Signed-off-by: Yaroslav Bolyukin <iam@lach.pw> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++--------- > include/drm/drm_displayid.h | 6 +++--- > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c > index 12893e7be..5fcefd9b5 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c > @@ -5404,13 +5404,17 @@ u32 drm_add_display_info(struct drm_connector *connector, const struct edid *edi > return quirks; > } > > -static struct drm_display_mode *drm_mode_displayid_detailed(struct drm_device *dev, > - struct displayid_detailed_timings_1 *timings) > +static struct drm_display_mode *drm_mode_displayid_detailed_1_7(struct drm_device *dev, > + struct displayid_detailed_timings_1_7 *timings, > + bool type_7)
I think the function rename here is unnecessary.
> { > struct drm_display_mode *mode; > unsigned pixel_clock = (timings->pixel_clock[0] | > (timings->pixel_clock[1] << 8) | > (timings->pixel_clock[2] << 16)) + 1; > + // type 7 allows higher precision pixel clock
Please don't use // style comments.
For the comment contents, I think you should just state the units for each; 10 kHz for type I, kHz for type VII.
> + if (!type_7) > + pixel_clock *= 10;
Please don't mix declarations and code.
> unsigned hactive = (timings->hactive[0] | timings->hactive[1] << 8) + 1; > unsigned hblank = (timings->hblank[0] | timings->hblank[1] << 8) + 1; > unsigned hsync = (timings->hsync[0] | (timings->hsync[1] & 0x7f) << 8) + 1; > @@ -5426,7 +5430,7 @@ static struct drm_display_mode *drm_mode_displayid_detailed(struct drm_device *d > if (!mode) > return NULL; > > - mode->clock = pixel_clock * 10; > + mode->clock = pixel_clock;
Since we used to have the multiplication here (and we don't mix declarations and code anyway) I'd keep it here.
Maybe:
mode->clock = type_7 ? pixel_clock : pixel_clock * 10;
> mode->hdisplay = hactive; > mode->hsync_start = mode->hdisplay + hsync; > mode->hsync_end = mode->hsync_start + hsync_width; > @@ -5449,10 +5453,12 @@ static struct drm_display_mode *drm_mode_displayid_detailed(struct drm_device *d > return mode; > } > > -static int add_displayid_detailed_1_modes(struct drm_connector *connector, > - const struct displayid_block *block) > +static int add_displayid_detailed_1_7_modes(struct drm_connector *connector, > + const struct displayid_block *block, > + bool type_7) > { > - struct displayid_detailed_timing_block *det = (struct displayid_detailed_timing_block *)block; > + struct displayid_detailed_timing_1_7_block *det = > + (struct displayid_detailed_timing_1_7_block *)block;
I think the displayid_detailed_timing_block -> displayid_detailed_timing_1_7_block rename is unnecessary.
> int i; > int num_timings; > struct drm_display_mode *newmode; > @@ -5463,9 +5469,9 @@ static int add_displayid_detailed_1_modes(struct drm_connector *connector, > > num_timings = block->num_bytes / 20; > for (i = 0; i < num_timings; i++) { > - struct displayid_detailed_timings_1 *timings = &det->timings[i]; > + struct displayid_detailed_timings_1_7 *timings = &det->timings[i]; > > - newmode = drm_mode_displayid_detailed(connector->dev, timings); > + newmode = drm_mode_displayid_detailed_1_7(connector->dev, timings, type_7); > if (!newmode) > continue; > > @@ -5485,7 +5491,9 @@ static int add_displayid_detailed_modes(struct drm_connector *connector, > displayid_iter_edid_begin(edid, &iter); > displayid_iter_for_each(block, &iter) { > if (block->tag == DATA_BLOCK_TYPE_1_DETAILED_TIMING) > - num_modes += add_displayid_detailed_1_modes(connector, block); > + num_modes += add_displayid_detailed_1_7_modes(connector, block, false); > + else if (block->tag == DATA_BLOCK_2_TYPE_7_DETAILED_TIMING) > + num_modes += add_displayid_detailed_1_7_modes(connector, block, true);
I'd probably not add a true/false parameter here, since we pass in block anyway, and the function can have and initialize the bool local variable internally based on block->tag.
> } > displayid_iter_end(&iter); > > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_displayid.h b/include/drm/drm_displayid.h > index 7ffbd9f7b..268ff5e1f 100644 > --- a/include/drm/drm_displayid.h > +++ b/include/drm/drm_displayid.h > @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ struct displayid_tiled_block { > u8 topology_id[8]; > } __packed; > > -struct displayid_detailed_timings_1 { > +struct displayid_detailed_timings_1_7 { > u8 pixel_clock[3]; > u8 flags; > u8 hactive[2]; > @@ -124,9 +124,9 @@ struct displayid_detailed_timings_1 { > u8 vsw[2]; > } __packed; > > -struct displayid_detailed_timing_block { > +struct displayid_detailed_timing_1_7_block {
Like I said, I wouldn't rename this.
> struct displayid_block base; > - struct displayid_detailed_timings_1 timings[]; > + struct displayid_detailed_timings_1_7 timings[]; > }; > > #define DISPLAYID_VESA_MSO_OVERLAP GENMASK(3, 0) > > base-commit: 99613159ad749543621da8238acf1a122880144e
-- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
| |