On 09/14/17 13:33, Jose Abreu wrote:
> Running CEC 1.4 compliance test we get the following error on test
> 11.1.6.2: "ERROR: The DUT did not broadcast a
> <Report Physical Address> message to the unregistered device."
>
> Fix this by letting GIVE_PHYSICAL_ADDR message respond to unregistered
> device.
>
> With this fix we pass CEC 1.4 official compliance.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jose Abreu <[email protected]>
> Cc: Hans Verkuil <[email protected]>
> Cc: Joao Pinto <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/media/cec/cec-adap.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/media/cec/cec-adap.c b/drivers/media/cec/cec-adap.c
> index dd769e4..48482aa 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/cec/cec-adap.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/cec/cec-adap.c
> @@ -1797,9 +1797,12 @@ static int cec_receive_notify(struct cec_adapter
> *adap, struct cec_msg *msg,
> case CEC_MSG_GIVE_DEVICE_VENDOR_ID:
> case CEC_MSG_ABORT:
> case CEC_MSG_GIVE_DEVICE_POWER_STATUS:
> - case CEC_MSG_GIVE_PHYSICAL_ADDR:
> case CEC_MSG_GIVE_OSD_NAME:
> case CEC_MSG_GIVE_FEATURES:
> + if (from_unregistered)
This should be (!adap->passthrough && from_unregistered)
> + return 0;
Actually, CEC_MSG_GIVE_DEVICE_VENDOR_ID and CEC_MSG_GIVE_FEATURES
fall in the same category as CEC_MSG_GIVE_PHYSICAL_ADDR. I.e. these are
directed messages but the reply is a broadcast message. All three can be
sent by an unregistered device. It's a good idea to mention this here.
I.e. something like:
/* These messages reply with a directed message, so ignore if
the initiator is Unregistered */
> + /* Fall through */
> + case CEC_MSG_GIVE_PHYSICAL_ADDR:
> /*
> * Skip processing these messages if the passthrough mode
> * is on.
> @@ -1807,7 +1810,7 @@ static int cec_receive_notify(struct cec_adapter *adap,
> struct cec_msg *msg,
> if (adap->passthrough)
> goto skip_processing;
> /* Ignore if addressing is wrong */
> - if (is_broadcast || from_unregistered)
> + if (is_broadcast)
> return 0;
> break;
>
>
Good catch, if you can make a v2 then I'll get this in for 4.14.
Not bad, just one obscure compliance error!
Regards,
Hans
