[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090225013153.GC6690@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:31:53 -0500
From: Kyle McMartin <kyle@...radead.org>
To: airlied@...hat.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org, marko.ristola@...umbus.fi
Subject: [PATCH] drm: edid revision 0 is valid
From: Kyle McMartin <kyle@...hat.com>
edid->revision == 0 should be valid (at least, so the error message
indicates. :) and wikipedia seems to indicate that EDID 1.0 existed.
We can dump the entire check, since edid->revision is a u8, so
it can't ever be less than 0.
Marko reports in RH bz#476735 that his monitor claims to be
EDID 1.0, and therefore hits the check and is stuck at 800x600 because
of it.
Reported-by: Marko Ristola <marko.ristola@...umbus.fi>
Signed-off-by: Kyle McMartin <kyle@...hat.com>
---
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
index 5a4d324..ec14dd8 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ static bool edid_is_valid(struct edid *edid)
DRM_ERROR("EDID has major version %d, instead of 1\n", edid->version);
goto bad;
}
- if (edid->revision <= 0 || edid->revision > 3) {
+ if (edid->revision > 3) {
DRM_ERROR("EDID has minor version %d, which is not between 0-3\n", edid->revision);
goto bad;
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists