On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 06:34:27PM -0400, Lyude Paul wrote:
> While the DP specification isn't entirely clear on if this should be
> allowed or not, some branch devices report having downstream ports present
> while also reporting a downstream port count of 0. So to avoid breaking
> those devices, we need to handle this in drm_dp_read_downstream_info().
>
> So, to do this we assume there's no downstream port info when the
> downstream port count is 0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lyude Paul
> Tested-by: Jérôme de Bretagne
> Bugzilla: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/3416
> Fixes: 3d3721ccb18a ("drm/i915/dp: Extract drm_dp_read_downstream_info()")
> Cc: # v5.10+
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c | 7 +++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
> index cb56d74e9d38..27c8c5bdf7d9 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
> @@ -682,7 +682,14 @@ int drm_dp_read_downstream_info(struct drm_dp_aux *aux,
> !(dpcd[DP_DOWNSTREAMPORT_PRESENT] & DP_DWN_STRM_PORT_PRESENT))
> return 0;
>
> + /* Some branches advertise having 0 downstream ports, despite also
> advertising they have a
> + * downstream port present. The DP spec isn't clear on if this is
> allowed or not, but since
> + * some branches do it we need to handle it regardless.
> + */
> len = drm_dp_downstream_port_count(dpcd);
> + if (!len)
> + return 0;
> +
Seems sane enough.
Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä
> if (dpcd[DP_DOWNSTREAMPORT_PRESENT] & DP_DETAILED_CAP_INFO_AVAILABLE)
> len *= 4;
>
> --
> 2.30.2
>
> ___
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
