linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] drm/edid: Implement DisplayID Type IX & X timing blocks parsing

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8968029b9ceb0bf88106e8372f7a2c4a46780f61.camel@sdore.me>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:00:00 +0300
From: Egor Vorontsov <sdoregor@...re.me>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Maarten Lankhorst
	 <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, 
 Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, Egor Vorontsov <sdoregor@...re.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] drm/edid: Implement DisplayID Type IX & X timing
 blocks parsing

On Mon, 2025-02-10 at 13:31 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:

> I think "Closes:" is what we want.
> Sometimes it's good to follow the surrounding code, but let's not
> duplicate existing mistakes. ;)

Ack!

> Please avoid 0b, it's very rarely used. Just 0x7. Or we could start
> defining macros for these in drm_displayid_internal.h...

I guess I'll leave the macros to future implementation, as clearly the
naming here is subject to seeing the actual DisplayID 2.1 specs PDF,
which is non-public as of now.

> Refresh rate is -1 in the data block, so this needs timings->refresh + 1.

Ack, nice catch! Worked for me, might've not for someone else's case.

> > +	if (timings->flags & 0x80)
> > + mode->type |= DRM_MODE_TYPE_PREFERRED;
> There's no such thing?

Oh, accidentally picked up from `drm_mode_displayid_detailed()'. Ack.

> > +	u8 timing_size = 6 + ((fb->base.rev & 0x70) >> 4);
> I'd go for int timing_size.

I'd actually vote for an unsigned int, as it's a length and can't
possibly be negative. But sticking to the M.O. of the file here.

Thank you for the review! Fixed per all other notes, as well.

Will resubmit soon,
Egor