If we're unable to read the EDID for a display because it's corrupt /
bogus / invalid then we'll add a set of standard modes for the
display. When userspace looks at these modes it doesn't really have a
good concept for which mode to pick and it'll likely pick the highest
resolution one by default. That's probably not ideal because the modes
were purely guesses on the part of the Linux kernel.
Let's instead set 640x480 as the "preferred" mode when we have no EDID.
Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
index 7a8482b75071..64ccfff4167e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
@@ -5839,6 +5839,15 @@ int drm_add_modes_noedid(struct drm_connector *connector,
continue;
mode = drm_mode_duplicate(dev, ptr);
if (mode) {
+ /*
+ * The drm_dmt_modes array is sorted so that lower
+ * resolutions come first. We'll set the lowest
+ * resolution mode as preferred. We have no EDID so
+ * we should prefer the lowest resolution mode as
+ * the safest one.
+ */
+ if (num_modes == 0)
+ mode->type |= DRM_MODE_TYPE_PREFERRED;
drm_mode_probed_add(connector, mode);
num_modes++;
}
--
2.36.0.rc2.479.g8af0fa9b8e-goog
On Thu, 05 May 2022, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ville,
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:21 PM Douglas Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> If we're unable to read the EDID for a display because it's corrupt /
>> bogus / invalid then we'll add a set of standard modes for the
>> display. When userspace looks at these modes it doesn't really have a
>> good concept for which mode to pick and it'll likely pick the highest
>> resolution one by default. That's probably not ideal because the modes
>> were purely guesses on the part of the Linux kernel.
>>
>> Let's instead set 640x480 as the "preferred" mode when we have no EDID.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 9 +++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> Someone suggested that you might have an opinion on this patch and
> another one I posted recently [1]. Do you have any thoughts on it?
> Just to be clear: I'm hoping to land _both_ this patch and [1]. If you
> don't have an opinion, that's OK too.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220426114627.2.I4ac7f55aa446699f8c200a23c10463256f6f439f@changeid
There are a number of drivers with combos:
drm_add_modes_noedid()
drm_set_preferred_mode()
which I think would be affected by the change. Perhaps you should just
call drm_set_preferred_mode() in your referenced patch?
Alternatively, perhaps drm_set_preferred_mode() should erase the
previous preferred mode(s) if it finds a matching new preferred mode.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
Ville,
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:21 PM Douglas Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If we're unable to read the EDID for a display because it's corrupt /
> bogus / invalid then we'll add a set of standard modes for the
> display. When userspace looks at these modes it doesn't really have a
> good concept for which mode to pick and it'll likely pick the highest
> resolution one by default. That's probably not ideal because the modes
> were purely guesses on the part of the Linux kernel.
>
> Let's instead set 640x480 as the "preferred" mode when we have no EDID.
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
Someone suggested that you might have an opinion on this patch and
another one I posted recently [1]. Do you have any thoughts on it?
Just to be clear: I'm hoping to land _both_ this patch and [1]. If you
don't have an opinion, that's OK too.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220426114627.2.I4ac7f55aa446699f8c200a23c10463256f6f439f@changeid
-Doug
Hi Jani
On 5/6/2022 4:16 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2022, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ville,
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:21 PM Douglas Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> If we're unable to read the EDID for a display because it's corrupt /
>>> bogus / invalid then we'll add a set of standard modes for the
>>> display. When userspace looks at these modes it doesn't really have a
>>> good concept for which mode to pick and it'll likely pick the highest
>>> resolution one by default. That's probably not ideal because the modes
>>> were purely guesses on the part of the Linux kernel.
>>>
>>> Let's instead set 640x480 as the "preferred" mode when we have no EDID.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 9 +++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>
>> Someone suggested that you might have an opinion on this patch and
>> another one I posted recently [1]. Do you have any thoughts on it?
>> Just to be clear: I'm hoping to land _both_ this patch and [1]. If you
>> don't have an opinion, that's OK too.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220426114627.2.I4ac7f55aa446699f8c200a23c10463256f6f439f@changeid
>
> There are a number of drivers with combos:
>
> drm_add_modes_noedid()
> drm_set_preferred_mode()
>
> which I think would be affected by the change. Perhaps you should just
> call drm_set_preferred_mode() in your referenced patch?
> So it seems like many drivers handle the !edid case within their
respective get_modes() call which probably is because they know the max
capability of their connector and because they know which mode should be
set as preferred. But at the same time, perhaps the code below which
handles the count == 0 case should be changed like below to make sure we
are within the max_width/height of the connector (to handle the first
condition)?
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
index 682359512996..6eb89d90777b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
@@ -517,7 +517,8 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct
drm_connector *connector,
if (count == 0 && (connector->status ==
connector_status_connected ||
connector->status == connector_status_unknown))
- count = drm_add_modes_noedid(connector, 1024, 768);
+ count = drm_add_modes_noedid(connector,
connector->dev->mode_config.max_width,
+ connector->dev->mode_config.max_height);
count += drm_helper_probe_add_cmdline_mode(connector);
if (count == 0)
goto prune;
> Alternatively, perhaps drm_set_preferred_mode() should erase the
> previous preferred mode(s) if it finds a matching new preferred mode.
>
But still yes, even if we change it like above perhaps for other non-DP
cases its still better to allow individual drivers to pick their
preferred modes.
If we call drm_set_preferred_mode() in the referenced patch, it will not
address the no EDID cases because the patch comes into picture when
there was a EDID with some modes but not with 640x480.
So i think the second proposal is a good one. It will cover existing
users of drm_set_preferred_mode() as typically its called after
drm_add_modes_noedid() which means the existing users want to "override"
their preferred mode.
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
Hi,
On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:33 AM Abhinav Kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Jani
>
> On 5/6/2022 4:16 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 May 2022, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Ville,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:21 PM Douglas Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If we're unable to read the EDID for a display because it's corrupt /
> >>> bogus / invalid then we'll add a set of standard modes for the
> >>> display. When userspace looks at these modes it doesn't really have a
> >>> good concept for which mode to pick and it'll likely pick the highest
> >>> resolution one by default. That's probably not ideal because the modes
> >>> were purely guesses on the part of the Linux kernel.
> >>>
> >>> Let's instead set 640x480 as the "preferred" mode when we have no EDID.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 9 +++++++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> Someone suggested that you might have an opinion on this patch and
> >> another one I posted recently [1]. Do you have any thoughts on it?
> >> Just to be clear: I'm hoping to land _both_ this patch and [1]. If you
> >> don't have an opinion, that's OK too.
> >>
> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220426114627.2.I4ac7f55aa446699f8c200a23c10463256f6f439f@changeid
> >
> > There are a number of drivers with combos:
> >
> > drm_add_modes_noedid()
> > drm_set_preferred_mode()
> >
> > which I think would be affected by the change. Perhaps you should just
> > call drm_set_preferred_mode() in your referenced patch?
I'm going to do that and I think it works out pretty well. Patch is at:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220510135101.v2.1.I31ec454f8d4ffce51a7708a8092f8a6f9c929092@changeid
> So it seems like many drivers handle the !edid case within their
> respective get_modes() call which probably is because they know the max
> capability of their connector and because they know which mode should be
> set as preferred. But at the same time, perhaps the code below which
> handles the count == 0 case should be changed like below to make sure we
> are within the max_width/height of the connector (to handle the first
> condition)?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> index 682359512996..6eb89d90777b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> @@ -517,7 +517,8 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct
> drm_connector *connector,
>
> if (count == 0 && (connector->status ==
> connector_status_connected ||
> connector->status == connector_status_unknown))
> - count = drm_add_modes_noedid(connector, 1024, 768);
> + count = drm_add_modes_noedid(connector,
> connector->dev->mode_config.max_width,
> + connector->dev->mode_config.max_height);
> count += drm_helper_probe_add_cmdline_mode(connector);
> if (count == 0)
> goto prune;
>
>
> > Alternatively, perhaps drm_set_preferred_mode() should erase the
> > previous preferred mode(s) if it finds a matching new preferred mode.
> >
>
> But still yes, even if we change it like above perhaps for other non-DP
> cases its still better to allow individual drivers to pick their
> preferred modes.
>
> If we call drm_set_preferred_mode() in the referenced patch, it will not
> address the no EDID cases because the patch comes into picture when
> there was a EDID with some modes but not with 640x480.
I'm not sure I understand the above paragraph. I think the "there's an
EDID but no 640x480" is handled by my other patch [1]. Here we're only
worried about the "no EDID" case, right?
> So i think the second proposal is a good one. It will cover existing
> users of drm_set_preferred_mode() as typically its called after
> drm_add_modes_noedid() which means the existing users want to "override"
> their preferred mode.
I looked at this, and I'm pretty sure that we can't clear the
preferred modes. It looks like it's possible for there to be more than
one preferred mode and I'm worried about borking that up.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220510131309.v2.2.I4ac7f55aa446699f8c200a23c10463256f6f439f@changeid
-Doug
Hi Doug
On 5/10/2022 1:53 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:33 AM Abhinav Kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jani
>>
>> On 5/6/2022 4:16 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 May 2022, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Ville,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:21 PM Douglas Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If we're unable to read the EDID for a display because it's corrupt /
>>>>> bogus / invalid then we'll add a set of standard modes for the
>>>>> display. When userspace looks at these modes it doesn't really have a
>>>>> good concept for which mode to pick and it'll likely pick the highest
>>>>> resolution one by default. That's probably not ideal because the modes
>>>>> were purely guesses on the part of the Linux kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's instead set 640x480 as the "preferred" mode when we have no EDID.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 9 +++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> Someone suggested that you might have an opinion on this patch and
>>>> another one I posted recently [1]. Do you have any thoughts on it?
>>>> Just to be clear: I'm hoping to land _both_ this patch and [1]. If you
>>>> don't have an opinion, that's OK too.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220426114627.2.I4ac7f55aa446699f8c200a23c10463256f6f439f@changeid
>>>
>>> There are a number of drivers with combos:
>>>
>>> drm_add_modes_noedid()
>>> drm_set_preferred_mode()
>>>
>>> which I think would be affected by the change. Perhaps you should just
>>> call drm_set_preferred_mode() in your referenced patch?
>
> I'm going to do that and I think it works out pretty well. Patch is at:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220510135101.v2.1.I31ec454f8d4ffce51a7708a8092f8a6f9c929092@changeid
>
>
>> So it seems like many drivers handle the !edid case within their
>> respective get_modes() call which probably is because they know the max
>> capability of their connector and because they know which mode should be
>> set as preferred. But at the same time, perhaps the code below which
>> handles the count == 0 case should be changed like below to make sure we
>> are within the max_width/height of the connector (to handle the first
>> condition)?
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
>> index 682359512996..6eb89d90777b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
>> @@ -517,7 +517,8 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct
>> drm_connector *connector,
>>
>> if (count == 0 && (connector->status ==
>> connector_status_connected ||
>> connector->status == connector_status_unknown))
>> - count = drm_add_modes_noedid(connector, 1024, 768);
>> + count = drm_add_modes_noedid(connector,
>> connector->dev->mode_config.max_width,
>> + connector->dev->mode_config.max_height);
>> count += drm_helper_probe_add_cmdline_mode(connector);
>> if (count == 0)
>> goto prune;
>>
>>
>>> Alternatively, perhaps drm_set_preferred_mode() should erase the
>>> previous preferred mode(s) if it finds a matching new preferred mode.
>>>
>>
>> But still yes, even if we change it like above perhaps for other non-DP
>> cases its still better to allow individual drivers to pick their
>> preferred modes.
>>
>> If we call drm_set_preferred_mode() in the referenced patch, it will not
>> address the no EDID cases because the patch comes into picture when
>> there was a EDID with some modes but not with 640x480.
>
> I'm not sure I understand the above paragraph. I think the "there's an
> EDID but no 640x480" is handled by my other patch [1]. Here we're only
> worried about the "no EDID" case, right?
>
Yes, there are two fixes which have been done (OR have to be done).
1) Case when EDID read failed and count of modes was 0.
Here the DRM framework was already adding 640x480@60fps. The fix we had
to make was making 640x480@60fps as the preferred mode. Which is what
your current patch aims at addressing.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220510135101.v2.1.I31ec454f8d4ffce51a7708a8092f8a6f9c929092@changeid/
So I thought the suggestion which Jani was giving was to call
drm_set_preferred_mode() on the referenced patch which was:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220510131309.v2.2.I4ac7f55aa446699f8c200a23c10463256f6f439f@changeid/
So that would not have fixed this case.
Perhaps, I misunderstood the patch which was being referenced?
2) Case where there were other modes, which got filtered out and in the
end no modes were left and we had to end up adding 640x480.
No need to set the preferred mode in this case as this would have been
the only mode in the list ( so becomes preferred by default ).
Thats this change
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220426114627.2.I4ac7f55aa446699f8c200a23c10463256f6f439f@changeid/
I agree with combination of these 2 it should work.
>
>> So i think the second proposal is a good one. It will cover existing
>> users of drm_set_preferred_mode() as typically its called after
>> drm_add_modes_noedid() which means the existing users want to "override"
>> their preferred mode.
>
> I looked at this, and I'm pretty sure that we can't clear the
> preferred modes. It looks like it's possible for there to be more than
> one preferred mode and I'm worried about borking that up.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220510131309.v2.2.I4ac7f55aa446699f8c200a23c10463256f6f439f@changeid
>
> -Doug
Hi,
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 2:33 PM Abhinav Kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Doug
>
> On 5/10/2022 1:53 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:33 AM Abhinav Kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Jani
> >>
> >> On 5/6/2022 4:16 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 05 May 2022, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Ville,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:21 PM Douglas Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If we're unable to read the EDID for a display because it's corrupt /
> >>>>> bogus / invalid then we'll add a set of standard modes for the
> >>>>> display. When userspace looks at these modes it doesn't really have a
> >>>>> good concept for which mode to pick and it'll likely pick the highest
> >>>>> resolution one by default. That's probably not ideal because the modes
> >>>>> were purely guesses on the part of the Linux kernel.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let's instead set 640x480 as the "preferred" mode when we have no EDID.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>
> >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 9 +++++++++
> >>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> Someone suggested that you might have an opinion on this patch and
> >>>> another one I posted recently [1]. Do you have any thoughts on it?
> >>>> Just to be clear: I'm hoping to land _both_ this patch and [1]. If you
> >>>> don't have an opinion, that's OK too.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220426114627.2.I4ac7f55aa446699f8c200a23c10463256f6f439f@changeid
> >>>
> >>> There are a number of drivers with combos:
> >>>
> >>> drm_add_modes_noedid()
> >>> drm_set_preferred_mode()
> >>>
> >>> which I think would be affected by the change. Perhaps you should just
> >>> call drm_set_preferred_mode() in your referenced patch?
> >
> > I'm going to do that and I think it works out pretty well. Patch is at:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220510135101.v2.1.I31ec454f8d4ffce51a7708a8092f8a6f9c929092@changeid
> >
> >
> >> So it seems like many drivers handle the !edid case within their
> >> respective get_modes() call which probably is because they know the max
> >> capability of their connector and because they know which mode should be
> >> set as preferred. But at the same time, perhaps the code below which
> >> handles the count == 0 case should be changed like below to make sure we
> >> are within the max_width/height of the connector (to handle the first
> >> condition)?
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> >> index 682359512996..6eb89d90777b 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
> >> @@ -517,7 +517,8 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct
> >> drm_connector *connector,
> >>
> >> if (count == 0 && (connector->status ==
> >> connector_status_connected ||
> >> connector->status == connector_status_unknown))
> >> - count = drm_add_modes_noedid(connector, 1024, 768);
> >> + count = drm_add_modes_noedid(connector,
> >> connector->dev->mode_config.max_width,
> >> + connector->dev->mode_config.max_height);
> >> count += drm_helper_probe_add_cmdline_mode(connector);
> >> if (count == 0)
> >> goto prune;
> >>
> >>
> >>> Alternatively, perhaps drm_set_preferred_mode() should erase the
> >>> previous preferred mode(s) if it finds a matching new preferred mode.
> >>>
> >>
> >> But still yes, even if we change it like above perhaps for other non-DP
> >> cases its still better to allow individual drivers to pick their
> >> preferred modes.
> >>
> >> If we call drm_set_preferred_mode() in the referenced patch, it will not
> >> address the no EDID cases because the patch comes into picture when
> >> there was a EDID with some modes but not with 640x480.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand the above paragraph. I think the "there's an
> > EDID but no 640x480" is handled by my other patch [1]. Here we're only
> > worried about the "no EDID" case, right?
> >
> Yes, there are two fixes which have been done (OR have to be done).
>
> 1) Case when EDID read failed and count of modes was 0.
>
> Here the DRM framework was already adding 640x480@60fps. The fix we had
> to make was making 640x480@60fps as the preferred mode. Which is what
> your current patch aims at addressing.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220510135101.v2.1.I31ec454f8d4ffce51a7708a8092f8a6f9c929092@changeid/
>
> So I thought the suggestion which Jani was giving was to call
> drm_set_preferred_mode() on the referenced patch which was:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220510131309.v2.2.I4ac7f55aa446699f8c200a23c10463256f6f439f@changeid/
>
> So that would not have fixed this case.
>
> Perhaps, I misunderstood the patch which was being referenced?
Ah! I couldn't quite understand what the "referenced patch" meant. I
assumed that Jani was meaning that we add a call to
drm_set_preferred_mode() to whatever was calling
drm_add_modes_noedid().
> 2) Case where there were other modes, which got filtered out and in the
> end no modes were left and we had to end up adding 640x480.
>
> No need to set the preferred mode in this case as this would have been
> the only mode in the list ( so becomes preferred by default ).
>
> Thats this change
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220426114627.2.I4ac7f55aa446699f8c200a23c10463256f6f439f@changeid/
>
> I agree with combination of these 2 it should work.
OK, cool. So just to be clear: you're good with both "v2" patches that
I sent out today and they should fix both use cases, right? ;-)
-Doug
Hi Doug
On 5/10/2022 2:41 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 2:33 PM Abhinav Kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Doug
>>
>> On 5/10/2022 1:53 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 9:33 AM Abhinav Kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jani
>>>>
>>>> On 5/6/2022 4:16 AM, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 May 2022, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Ville,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:21 PM Douglas Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we're unable to read the EDID for a display because it's corrupt /
>>>>>>> bogus / invalid then we'll add a set of standard modes for the
>>>>>>> display. When userspace looks at these modes it doesn't really have a
>>>>>>> good concept for which mode to pick and it'll likely pick the highest
>>>>>>> resolution one by default. That's probably not ideal because the modes
>>>>>>> were purely guesses on the part of the Linux kernel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's instead set 640x480 as the "preferred" mode when we have no EDID.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 9 +++++++++
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone suggested that you might have an opinion on this patch and
>>>>>> another one I posted recently [1]. Do you have any thoughts on it?
>>>>>> Just to be clear: I'm hoping to land _both_ this patch and [1]. If you
>>>>>> don't have an opinion, that's OK too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220426114627.2.I4ac7f55aa446699f8c200a23c10463256f6f439f@changeid
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a number of drivers with combos:
>>>>>
>>>>> drm_add_modes_noedid()
>>>>> drm_set_preferred_mode()
>>>>>
>>>>> which I think would be affected by the change. Perhaps you should just
>>>>> call drm_set_preferred_mode() in your referenced patch?
>>>
>>> I'm going to do that and I think it works out pretty well. Patch is at:
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220510135101.v2.1.I31ec454f8d4ffce51a7708a8092f8a6f9c929092@changeid
>>>
>>>
>>>> So it seems like many drivers handle the !edid case within their
>>>> respective get_modes() call which probably is because they know the max
>>>> capability of their connector and because they know which mode should be
>>>> set as preferred. But at the same time, perhaps the code below which
>>>> handles the count == 0 case should be changed like below to make sure we
>>>> are within the max_width/height of the connector (to handle the first
>>>> condition)?
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
>>>> index 682359512996..6eb89d90777b 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_probe_helper.c
>>>> @@ -517,7 +517,8 @@ int drm_helper_probe_single_connector_modes(struct
>>>> drm_connector *connector,
>>>>
>>>> if (count == 0 && (connector->status ==
>>>> connector_status_connected ||
>>>> connector->status == connector_status_unknown))
>>>> - count = drm_add_modes_noedid(connector, 1024, 768);
>>>> + count = drm_add_modes_noedid(connector,
>>>> connector->dev->mode_config.max_width,
>>>> + connector->dev->mode_config.max_height);
>>>> count += drm_helper_probe_add_cmdline_mode(connector);
>>>> if (count == 0)
>>>> goto prune;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Alternatively, perhaps drm_set_preferred_mode() should erase the
>>>>> previous preferred mode(s) if it finds a matching new preferred mode.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But still yes, even if we change it like above perhaps for other non-DP
>>>> cases its still better to allow individual drivers to pick their
>>>> preferred modes.
>>>>
>>>> If we call drm_set_preferred_mode() in the referenced patch, it will not
>>>> address the no EDID cases because the patch comes into picture when
>>>> there was a EDID with some modes but not with 640x480.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand the above paragraph. I think the "there's an
>>> EDID but no 640x480" is handled by my other patch [1]. Here we're only
>>> worried about the "no EDID" case, right?
>>>
>> Yes, there are two fixes which have been done (OR have to be done).
>>
>> 1) Case when EDID read failed and count of modes was 0.
>>
>> Here the DRM framework was already adding 640x480@60fps. The fix we had
>> to make was making 640x480@60fps as the preferred mode. Which is what
>> your current patch aims at addressing.
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220510135101.v2.1.I31ec454f8d4ffce51a7708a8092f8a6f9c929092@changeid/
>>
>> So I thought the suggestion which Jani was giving was to call
>> drm_set_preferred_mode() on the referenced patch which was:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220510131309.v2.2.I4ac7f55aa446699f8c200a23c10463256f6f439f@changeid/
>>
>> So that would not have fixed this case.
>>
>> Perhaps, I misunderstood the patch which was being referenced?
>
> Ah! I couldn't quite understand what the "referenced patch" meant. I
> assumed that Jani was meaning that we add a call to
> drm_set_preferred_mode() to whatever was calling
> drm_add_modes_noedid().
>
>
>> 2) Case where there were other modes, which got filtered out and in the
>> end no modes were left and we had to end up adding 640x480.
>>
>> No need to set the preferred mode in this case as this would have been
>> the only mode in the list ( so becomes preferred by default ).
>>
>> Thats this change
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220426114627.2.I4ac7f55aa446699f8c200a23c10463256f6f439f@changeid/
>>
>> I agree with combination of these 2 it should work.
>
> OK, cool. So just to be clear: you're good with both "v2" patches that
> I sent out today and they should fix both use cases, right? ;-)
Yes, I did go through the V2s of both the changes and it should address
both the use cases.
FWIW, I have acked both of them.
Thanks
Abhinav
>
> -Doug