[PATCH] drm/dp: start using more of the extended receiver caps

[Jani Nikula]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2020, Lyude Paul <lyude at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 15:32 +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> In the future, we'll be needing more of the extended receiver capability
>> field starting at DPCD address 0x2200. (Specifically, we'll need main
>> link channel coding cap for DP 2.0.) Start using it now to not miss out
>> later on.
>> 
>> Cc: Lyude Paul <lyude at redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> I guess this can be merged after the topic branch to drm-misc-next or
>> so, but I'd prefer to have this fairly early on to catch any potential
>> issues.
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
>> index 1e7c638873c8..3a3c238452df 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_dp_helper.c
>> @@ -436,7 +436,7 @@ static u8 drm_dp_downstream_port_count(const u8
>> dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE])
>>  static int drm_dp_read_extended_dpcd_caps(struct drm_dp_aux *aux,
>>  					  u8 dpcd[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE])
>>  {
>> -	u8 dpcd_ext[6];
>> +	u8 dpcd_ext[DP_RECEIVER_CAP_SIZE];
>
> Not 100% sure this is right? It's not clear at first glance of the 2.0 spec, but
> my assumption would be that on < DP2.0 devices that everything but those first 6
> bytes are zeroed out in the extended DPRX field. Since we memcpy() dpcd_ext
> using sizeof(dpcd_ext), we'd potentially end up zeroing out all of the DPCD caps
> that comes after those 6 bytes.

Re-reading stuff... AFAICT everything in 0x2200..0x220F should be
valid. They should match what's in 0x0000..0x000F except for 0x0000,
0x0001, and 0x0005, for backwards compatibility.

Apparently there are no such backwards compatibility concerns with the
other receiver cap fields then.

But it gives me an uneasy feeling that many places in the spec refer to
0x2200+ even though they should per spec be the same in 0x0000+.

I guess we can try without the change, and fix later if we hit issues.


BR,
Jani.

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center