[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bk0tgll7.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 14:25:40 +0300
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, Tejas Vipin
<tejasvipin76@...il.com>, Laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com,
patrik.r.jakobsson@...il.com, maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com,
mripard@...nel.org, airlied@...il.com, daniel@...ll.ch
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/gma500: replace drm_detect_hdmi_monitor() with
drm_display_info.is_hdmi
On Thu, 12 Sep 2024, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 12.09.24 um 11:38 schrieb Jani Nikula:
>> On Thu, 12 Sep 2024, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de> wrote:
>>> Am 12.09.24 um 10:56 schrieb Jani Nikula:
>>>> Moreover, in this case .detect() only detects digital displays as
>>>> reported by EDID. If you postpone that to .get_modes(), the probe helper
>>>> will still report connected, and invent non-EDID fallback modes. The
>>>> behaviour changes.
>>> The change in behavior is intentional, because the current test seems
>>> arbitrary. Does the driver not work with analog outputs?
>> Not on a DVI/HDMI port. Same with i915.
>>
>> That's possibly the only way to distinguish a DVI-A display connected to
>> DVI-D source.
>
> That's a detect failure, but IMHO our probe helpers should really handle
> this case.
How? Allow returning detect failures from .get_modes()?
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists