[PATCH v5 6/6] drm/panel-edp: Fix AUO 0x405c panel naming and add a variant

[Jani Nikula]

On Thu, 07 Mar 2024, Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi at chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 5:28 AM Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 06 Mar 2024, Doug Anderson <dianders at chromium.org> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:04 PM Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi at chromium.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> @@ -1009,6 +1009,19 @@ static const struct panel_desc auo_b101ean01 = {
>> >>         },
>> >>  };
>> >>
>> >> +static const struct drm_display_mode auo_b116xa3_mode = {
>> >> +       .clock = 70589,
>> >> +       .hdisplay = 1366,
>> >> +       .hsync_start = 1366 + 40,
>> >> +       .hsync_end = 1366 + 40 + 40,
>> >> +       .htotal = 1366 + 40 + 40 + 32,
>> >> +       .vdisplay = 768,
>> >> +       .vsync_start = 768 + 10,
>> >> +       .vsync_end = 768 + 10 + 12,
>> >> +       .vtotal = 768 + 10 + 12 + 6,
>> >> +       .flags = DRM_MODE_FLAG_NVSYNC | DRM_MODE_FLAG_NHSYNC,
>> >> +};
>> >> +
>> >>  static const struct drm_display_mode auo_b116xak01_mode = {
>> >>         .clock = 69300,
>> >>         .hdisplay = 1366,
>> >> @@ -1990,7 +2003,9 @@ static const struct edp_panel_entry edp_panels[] = {
>> >>         EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('A', 'U', 'O', 0x239b, &delay_200_500_e50, "B116XAN06.1"),
>> >>         EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('A', 'U', 'O', 0x255c, &delay_200_500_e50, "B116XTN02.5"),
>> >>         EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('A', 'U', 'O', 0x403d, &delay_200_500_e50, "B140HAN04.0"),
>> >> -       EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('A', 'U', 'O', 0x405c, &auo_b116xak01.delay, "B116XAK01.0"),
>> >> +       EDP_PANEL_ENTRY('A', 'U', 'O', 0x405c, &auo_b116xak01.delay, "B116XAN04.0"),
>> >> +       EDP_PANEL_ENTRY2('A', 'U', 'O', 0x405c, &auo_b116xak01.delay, "B116XAK01.0 ",
>> >
>> > Remove the trailing space from the string above now?
>>
>> Maybe it actually needs to be considered part of the name; see my other
>> reply in the earlier patch.
>>
> I randomly checked 3 of the AUO panels that I had a datasheet with,
> and all of them have a white space padding before \n.
> The descriptor of that field is marked as "Reserved for definition",
> unlike other characters, representing the name, which are marked with
> "Manufacture P/N".
>
> For this example, do we still want to consider the white space part of
> the name? I know they didn't follow the spec exactly.

If there's one thing that's for sure, EDIDs are full of stuff like this,
across the board.

Ignoring the whitespace at the end seemed reasonable, initially, to me
too. But the question is, if we start catering for this, what else
should we cater for? Do we keep adding "reasonable" interpretations, or
just go by the spec?


BR,
Jani.


>
>> >
>> > Aside from that:
>> >
>> > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders at chromium.org>
>>
>> --
>> Jani Nikula, Intel

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel