[RFC PATCH] HDMI:Support for EDID parsing in kernel.

[K, Mythri P]

Hi Jesse,

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:58:27 +0530
> "K, Mythri P" <mythripk at ti.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Mythri P K <mythripk at ti.com> wrote:
>> >> Adding support for common EDID parsing in kernel.
>> >>
>> >> EDID - Extended display identification data is a data structure provided by
>> >> a digital display to describe its capabilities to a video source, This a
>> >> standard supported by CEA and VESA.
>> >>
>> >> There are several custom implementations for parsing EDID in kernel, some
>> >> of them are present in fbmon.c, drm_edid.c, sh_mobile_hdmi.c, Ideally
>> >> parsing of EDID should be done in a library, which is agnostic of the
>> >> framework (V4l2, DRM, FB)  which is using the functionality, just based on
>> >> the raw EDID pointer with size/segment information.
>> >>
>> >> With other RFC's such as the one below, which tries to standardize HDMI API's
>> >> It would be better to have a common EDID code in one place.It also helps to
>> >> provide better interoperability with variety of TV/Monitor may be even by
>> >> listing out quirks which might get missed with several custom implementation
>> >> of EDID.
>> >> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.video-input-infrastructure/30401
>> >>
>> >> This patch tries to add functions to parse some portion EDID (detailed timing,
>> >> monitor limits, AV delay information, deep color mode support, Audio and VSDB)
>> >> If we can align on this library approach i can enhance this library to parse
>> >> other blocks and probably we could also add quirks from other implementation
>> >> as well.
>> >>
>> >
>> > If you want to take this approach, you need to start from the DRM EDID parser,
>> > its the most well tested and I can guarantee its been plugged into more monitors
>> > than any of the others. There is just no way we would move the DRM parser to a
>> > library one that isn't derived from it + enhancements, as we'd throw away the
>> > years of testing and the regression count would be way too high.
>> >
>> I had a look at the DRM EDID code, but for quirks it looks pretty much the same.
>> yes i could take quirks and other DRM tested code and enhance, but
>> still the code has to do away with struct drm_display_mode
>> which is very much custom to DRM.
>
> If that's the only issue you have, we could easily rename that
> structure or add conversion funcs to a smaller structure if that's what
> you need.
>
> Dave's point is that we can't ditch the existing code without
> introducing a lot of risk; it would be better to start a library-ized
> EDID codebase from the most complete one we have already, i.e. the DRM
> EDID code.
>
This sounds good. If we can remove the DRM dependent portion to have a
library-ized EDID code,
That would be perfect. The main Intention to have a library is,
Instead of having several different Implementation in kernel, all
doing the same EDID parsing , if we could have one single
implementation , it would help in better testing and interoperability.

> Do you really think the differences between your code and the existing
> DRM code are irreconcilable?
>
On the contrary if there is a library-ized  EDID parsing using the
drm_edid, and there is any delta / fields( Parsing the video block in
CEA extension for Short Video Descriptor, Vendor block for AV delay
/Deep color information etc) that are parsed with the RFC i posted i
would be happy to add.

Thanks and regards,
Mythri.
> --
> Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
>