On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 05:57:08PM +0000, C, Ramalingam wrote:
> Thanks seanpaul for the reviews.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sean Paul [mailto:seanp...@chromium.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 1:51 AM
> > To: C, Ramalingam <ramalinga...@intel.com>
> > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org;
> > dan...@ffwll.ch; Winkler, Tomas <tomas.wink...@intel.com>; Usyskin,
> > Alexander <alexander.usys...@intel.com>; Shankar, Uma
> > <uma.shan...@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 01/40] drm: hdcp2.2 authentication msg
> > definitions
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 02:09:50PM +0530, Ramalingam C wrote:
> > > This patch defines the hdcp2.2 protocol messages for authentication.
> > >
> > > v2:
> > > bit_fields are removed. Instead bitmasking used. [Tomas and Jani]
> > > prefix HDCP_2_2_ is added to the macros. [Tomas]
> > > v3:
> > > No Changes.
> > > v4:
> > > Style and spellings are fixed [Uma]
> > > v5:
> > > Fix for macros.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C <ramalinga...@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > include/drm/drm_hdcp.h | 179
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 179 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h b/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h index
> > > 98e63d870139..3e963c5d04b2 100644
> > > --- a/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h
> > > +++ b/include/drm/drm_hdcp.h
> > > @@ -38,4 +38,183 @@
> > > #define DRM_HDCP_DDC_BSTATUS 0x41
> > > #define DRM_HDCP_DDC_KSV_FIFO 0x43
> > >
> > > +#define DRM_HDCP_1_4_SRM_ID 0x8
> > > +#define DRM_HDCP_1_4_VRL_LENGTH_SIZE 3
> > > +#define DRM_HDCP_1_4_DCP_SIG_SIZE 40
> > These don't seem to be related to the patch?
> > > +
> > > +/* Protocol message definition for HDCP2.2 specification */
> > > +#define HDCP_STREAM_TYPE0 0x00
> > > +#define HDCP_STREAM_TYPE1 0x01
> > Why not HDCP_2_2 prefix?
> Though they are introduced at HDCP2.2, this is classification of the streams.
> And Type 0 can be transmitted on HDCP1.4.
> So keeping it as generic name with no version mentioned.
Ok, I guess it's the comment that was throwing me off. Perhaps you could improve
* Protected video streams are classified into 2 types:
* - Type0: Can be transmitted with HDCP 1.4+
* - Type1: Can be transmitted with HDCP 2.2+
> > > +} __packed;
> > Perhaps this has already been asked and answered, but do all of these need
> > to
> > be __packed? This is kind of the problem with adding a bunch of unused
> > structures to a patch, it's hard to see what their usage is. In future,
> > these should
> > probably be introduced when they're being used.
> These are the HDCP2.2 message defined at HDCP2.2 spec. And they needs to be
> __packed just to have exact size mentioned by spec.
> Like how we have HDCP1.4 and 2.2 macros defined as per the HDCP spec
> defined the HDCP2.2 messages together here.
Thanks for the explanation.
> > Sean
> > > +
> > > #endif
> > > --
> > > 2.7.4
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > > Intelemail@example.com
> > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> > --
> > Sean Paul, Software Engineer, Google / Chromium OS
Sean Paul, Software Engineer, Google / Chromium OS
Intel-gfx mailing list