[PATCH 1/5] drm/displayid: Enhance version reporting

[Michel Dänzer]

On 04.05.2016 18:10, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 06:36:48AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
>> From: Tomas Bzatek <tomas at bzatek.net>
>>
>> Cosmetic change, let's report more precise revisions and IDs.
>>
>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95207
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dave Airlie <airlied at redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c  | 6 +++---
>>  include/drm/drm_displayid.h | 6 ++++--
>>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
>> index 9a9be9a..c8a3a55 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
>> @@ -4168,8 +4168,8 @@ static int drm_parse_display_id(struct drm_connector *connector,
>>  
>>  	base = (struct displayid_hdr *)&displayid[idx];
>>  
>> -	DRM_DEBUG_KMS("base revision 0x%x, length %d, %d %d\n",
>> -		      base->rev, base->bytes, base->prod_id, base->ext_count);
>> +	DRM_DEBUG_KMS("base revision v%d.%d, edid length %d, bytes %d, prod_id %d ext_count %d\n",
>> +		      base->ver, base->rev, length, base->bytes, base->prod_id, base->ext_count);
>>  
>>  	if (base->bytes + 5 > length - idx)
>>  		return -EINVAL;
>> @@ -4183,7 +4183,7 @@ static int drm_parse_display_id(struct drm_connector *connector,
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	block = (struct displayid_block *)&displayid[idx + 4];
>> -	DRM_DEBUG_KMS("block id %d, rev %d, len %d\n",
>> +	DRM_DEBUG_KMS("block id 0x%x, rev %d, len %d\n",
>>  		      block->tag, block->rev, block->num_bytes);
>>  
>>  	switch (block->tag) {
>> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_displayid.h b/include/drm/drm_displayid.h
>> index 623b4e9..042f9fc 100644
>> --- a/include/drm/drm_displayid.h
>> +++ b/include/drm/drm_displayid.h
>> @@ -52,7 +52,8 @@
>>  #define PRODUCT_TYPE_DIRECT_DRIVE 6
>>  
>>  struct displayid_hdr {
>> -	u8 rev;
>> +	u8 rev:4;
>> +	u8 ver:4;
>>  	u8 bytes;
>>  	u8 prod_id;
>>  	u8 ext_count;
>> @@ -60,7 +61,8 @@ struct displayid_hdr {
>>  
>>  struct displayid_block {
>>  	u8 tag;
>> -	u8 rev;
>> +	u8 rev:3;
>> +	u8 reserved:5;
>>  	u8 num_bytes;
>>  } __packed;
> 
> Using bitfields in an architecture independent structure doesn't
> feel like an entirely good idea to me.

Yeah, this won't work as expected on some architectures.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer               |               http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast             |             Mesa and X developer