On 02 February, 2017 02:46 CET, Emil Velikov [off-list ref] wrote: 
 

On 1 February 2017 at 11:35, Daniel Vetter [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 10:58:43AM +0000, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:

quoted

Hi Archit,

On 01 February, 2017 10:44 CET, Archit Taneja [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 01/30/2017 10:35 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:

quoted

On Sat, 28 Jan 2017, Peter Senna Tschudin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 01:18:47PM +0530, Archit Taneja wrote:
Hi Archit,

Thank you for the comments!

[...]

quoted

quoted

+      total_size = (block[EDID_EXT_BLOCK_CNT] + 1) * EDID_LENGTH;
+      if (total_size > EDID_LENGTH) {
+              kfree(block);
+              block = kmalloc(total_size, GFP_KERNEL);
+              if (!block)
+                      return NULL;
+
+              /* Yes, read the entire buffer, and do not skip the first
+               * EDID_LENGTH bytes.
+               */

Is this the reason why you aren't using drm_do_get_edid()?

quoted

quoted

quoted

Yes, for some hw specific reason, it is necessary to read the entire
EDID buffer starting from 0, not block by block.

Hrmh, I'm planning on moving the edid override and firmware edid
mechanisms at the drm_do_get_edid() level to be able to truly and
transparently use a different edid. Currently, they're only used for
modes, really, and lead to some info retrieved from overrides, some from
the real edid. This kind of hacks will bypass the override/firmware edid
mechanisms then too. :(

It seems like there is a HW issue which prevents them from reading EDID
from an offset. So, I'm not sure if it is a hack or a HW limitation.

quoted

One way around this would be to hide the HW requirement in the
get_edid_block func pointer passed to drm_do_get_edid(). This
would, however, result in more i2c reads (equal to # of extension
blocks) than what the patch currently does.

Peter, if you think doing extra EDID reads isn't too costly on your
platform, you could consider using drm_do_get_edid(). If not, I guess
you'll miss out on the additional functionality Jani is going to add

quoted

in the future.

My concern is that for almost one year now, every time I fix something
one or two new requests are made. I'm happy to fix the driver, but I
want a list of the changes that are required to get it upstream, before
I make more changes. Can we agree on exactly what is preventing this
driver to get upstream? Then I'll fix it.

I think addressing this edid reading question post-merge is perfectly
fine. Aside, want to keep maintaing your stuff as part of the drm-misc
group, with the drivers-in-misc experiment?

Wasn't there some entry level for people ? It's not like Peter is
thick or anything, just that he has not reviewed or replied (afaict)

to any patches, even on ones where he was explicitly cc'd.
Although he's got dozens of contributions elsewhere, there's only a
single patch of his in DRM.

"Any" is an exaggeration. See:

c6c1f9bc798bee7cf
...
Tested-by: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@gmail.com>

Even if my involvement with drm started with my driver last year, I took my personal time to report this issue, and to test multiple iterations of the fix. Then my "single patch in DRM" involved some work to get it right, and it is something, that made imx-ldb better by adding a feature it did not support before.

You made me curious. Can you point to the explicit cases where Peter "has not reviewed or replied to any patches, even on ones where he was explicitly cc'd"? And can you list case by case your take on why I should have done differently?

Also it is not clear to me what the problem really is here. I'm assuming is not me, but if I was qualified from your perspective then would be no problem, right?