> Questions for Community > ======================= > > This issue raises several questions about DisplayID validation approach: > > 1. Is this strict validation intentional for all hardware? What are the > security or stability reasons for treating checksum errors as fatal? > > 2. Are minor checksum variations expected in real-world panels? Is this > type of manufacturing variation common? > > 3. How should the kernel handle hardware with minor EDID/DisplayID issues? > Are there existing mechanisms for such compatibility cases? > > 4. What would be the preferred approach for handling this type of > compatibility issue? Are there existing precedents or guidelines? > > 5. Are other users experiencing similar DisplayID validation failures? > Is this an isolated case or part of a broader pattern?
There is code already to ignore EDID checksum for CEA extension blocks, look for EDID_BLOCK_CHECKSUM, it probably could be extended to cover displayid blocks, Otherwise I do wonder how common this is, and whether it should be quirk per panel or just always do it. Dave.
