[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <40e68d74c0bb0df15f610fde017116357b40560d.camel@mediatek.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:30:27 +0000
From: CK Hu (胡俊光) <ck.hu@...iatek.com>
To: Mac Shen (沈俊) <Mac.Shen@...iatek.com>,
"chunkuang.hu@...nel.org" <chunkuang.hu@...nel.org>,
Jitao Shi (石记涛) <jitao.shi@...iatek.com>,
"daniel@...ll.ch" <daniel@...ll.ch>, "p.zabel@...gutronix.de"
<p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, "airlied@...il.com" <airlied@...il.com>,
"matthias.bgg@...il.com" <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
"angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com"
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
CC: "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Shuijing Li (李水静) <Shuijing.Li@...iatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Subject: [PATCH] drm/mediatek/dp: Add HDCP2.x
feature for DisplayPort
Hi, Mac:
On Mon, 2024-02-05 at 13:50 +0800, mac.shen wrote:
> Add HDCP2.x feature for DisplayPort.
> When userspace request the kernel protect future content communicated
> over the link with Content_Protection property, the feature will do
> HDCP2.x authentication if the sink support HDCP2.X.
>
> Changes in v2:
> - remove switch case, and refine code to make more clear
> - remove some definitions, and use the definitions in
> include/drm/drm_hdcp.h
> - use the struct which defined in include/drm/drm_hdcp.h
> - do HDCP2.x authentication when userspace request the
> kernel protect future content communicated
> per suggestion from the previous thread:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/8fff59b5567449d8201dd1138c8fa
> 9218a545c46.camel@...iatek.com/
>
> Signed-off-by: mac.shen <mac.shen@...iatek.com>
> ---
[snip]
>
> +void mtk_dp_check_hdcp_version(struct mtk_dp *mtk_dp, bool
> only_hdcp1x)
> +{
> + if (!only_hdcp1x && dp_tx_hdcp2_support(&mtk_dp->hdcp_info))
> + return;
> +
> + if (tee_add_device(&mtk_dp->hdcp_info, HDCP_NONE) !=
> RET_SUCCESS)
Does this mean that if rx does not support hdcp, dp tx driver still
need to create tee device to work for no hdcp? If so, I think this
should be separated to an independent patch. I like the patch sequence
to be:
1. Support NO HDCP
2. Support HDCP 1x
3. Support HDCP 2x
Regards,
CK
> + mtk_dp->hdcp_info.auth_status = AUTH_FAIL;
> +}
> +
Powered by blists - more mailing lists