linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] drm/edid: Make 144 Hz not preferred on Sharp LQ140M1JW46

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220729075118.ofnpk52tk4usm3n3@penduick>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jul 2022 09:51:18 +0200
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        freedreno <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sankeerth Billakanti <quic_sbillaka@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] drm/edid: Make 144 Hz not preferred on Sharp
 LQ140M1JW46

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 02:18:38PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 10:34 AM Abhinav Kumar
> <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rob and Doug
> >
> > On 7/22/2022 10:36 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 9:48 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 9:37 AM Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> + sankeerth
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Doug
> > >>>
> > >>> On 7/21/2022 3:23 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > >>>> The Sharp LQ140M1JW46 panel is on the Qualcomm sc7280 CRD reference
> > >>>> board. This panel supports 144 Hz and 60 Hz. In the EDID, the 144 Hz
> > >>>> mode is listed first and thus is marked preferred. The EDID decode I
> > >>>> ran says:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>     First detailed timing includes the native pixel format and preferred
> > >>>>     refresh rate.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>     ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>>     Detailed Timing Descriptors:
> > >>>>       DTD 1:  1920x1080  143.981 Hz  16:9   166.587 kHz  346.500 MHz
> > >>>>                    Hfront   48 Hsync  32 Hback  80 Hpol N
> > >>>>                    Vfront    3 Vsync   5 Vback  69 Vpol N
> > >>>>       DTD 2:  1920x1080   59.990 Hz  16:9    69.409 kHz  144.370 MHz
> > >>>>                    Hfront   48 Hsync  32 Hback  80 Hpol N
> > >>>>                    Vfront    3 Vsync   5 Vback  69 Vpol N
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm proposing here that the above is actually a bug and that the 60 Hz
> > >>>> mode really should be considered preferred by Linux.
> >
> > Its a bit tricky to say that this is a bug but I think we can certainly
> > add here that for an internal display we would have ideally had the
> > lower resolution first to indicate it as default.
> 
> Yeah, it gets into the vagueness of the EDID spec in general. As far
> as I can find it's really up to the monitor to decide by what means it
> chooses the "preferred" refresh rate if the monitor can support many.
> Some displays may decide that the normal rate is "preferred" and some
> may decide that the high refresh rate is "preferred". Neither display
> is "wrong" per say, but it's nice to have some consistency here and to
> make it so that otherwise "dumb" userspace will get something
> reasonable by default. I'll change it to say:
> 
> While the EDID spec appears to allow a display to use any criteria for
> picking which refresh mode is "preferred" or "optimal", that vagueness
> is a bit annoying. From Linux's point of view let's choose the 60 Hz
> one as the default.

And if we start making that decision, it should be for all panels with a
similar constraint, so most likely handled by the core, and the new
policy properly documented.

Doing that just for a single panel is weird.

Maxime

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)