From: Kyle McMartin <k...@redhat.com>
edid->revision == 0 should be valid (at least, so the error message
indicates. :) and wikipedia seems to indicate that EDID 1.0 existed.
We can dump the entire check, since edid->revision is a u8, so
it can't ever be less than 0.
Marko reports in RH bz#476735 that his monitor claims to be
EDID 1.0, and therefore hits the check and is stuck at 800x600 because
of it.
Reported-by: Marko Ristola <marko.rist...@kolumbus.fi>
Signed-off-by: Kyle McMartin <k...@redhat.com>
---
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
index 5a4d324..ec14dd8 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ static bool edid_is_valid(struct edid *edid)
DRM_ERROR("EDID has major version %d, instead of 1\n",
edid->version);
goto bad;
}
- if (edid->revision <= 0 || edid->revision > 3) {
+ if (edid->revision > 3) {
DRM_ERROR("EDID has minor version %d, which is not between
0-3\n", edid->revision);
goto bad;
}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA
-OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise
-Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation
-Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD
http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
