Johan,
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 at 09:54, Johan Hovold <jo...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 08:54:29AM +0100, Christopher Obbard wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 at 09:33, Johan Hovold <jo...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > > > @@ -4035,6 +4036,32 @@ drm_edp_backlight_probe_max(struct drm_dp_aux
> > > > *aux, struct drm_edp_backlight_inf
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > pn &= DP_EDP_PWMGEN_BIT_COUNT_MASK;
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = drm_dp_dpcd_read_byte(aux, DP_EDP_PWMGEN_BIT_COUNT_CAP_MIN,
> > > > &pn_min);
> > > > + if (ret < 0) {
> > > > + drm_dbg_kms(aux->drm_dev, "%s: Failed to read pwmgen bit
> > > > count cap min: %d\n",
> > > > + aux->name, ret);
> > > > + return -ENODEV;
> > > > + }
> > > > + pn_min &= DP_EDP_PWMGEN_BIT_COUNT_MASK;
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = drm_dp_dpcd_read_byte(aux, DP_EDP_PWMGEN_BIT_COUNT_CAP_MAX,
> > > > &pn_max);
> > > > + if (ret < 0) {
> > > > + drm_dbg_kms(aux->drm_dev, "%s: Failed to read pwmgen bit
> > > > count cap max: %d\n",
> > > > + aux->name, ret);
> > > > + return -ENODEV;
> > > > + }
> > > > + pn_max &= DP_EDP_PWMGEN_BIT_COUNT_MASK;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Per VESA eDP Spec v1.4b, section 3.3.10.2:
> > > > + * If DP_EDP_PWMGEN_BIT_COUNT is less than
> > > > DP_EDP_PWMGEN_BIT_COUNT_CAP_MIN,
> > > > + * the sink must use the MIN value as the effective PWM bit count.
> > > > + * Clamp the reported value to the [MIN, MAX] capability range to
> > > > ensure
> > > > + * correct brightness scaling on compliant eDP panels.
> > > > + */
> > > > + pn = clamp(pn, pn_min, pn_max);
> > >
> > > You never make sure that pn_min <= pn_max so you could end up with
> > > pn < pn_min on broken hardware here. Not sure if it's something you need
> > > to worry about at this point.
> >
> > I am honestly not sure. I would hope that devices follow the spec and
> > there is no need to be too paranoid, but then again we do live in the
> > real world where things are... not so simple ;-).
> > I will wait for further feedback from someone who has more experience
> > with eDP panels than I have.
>
> There's always going to be buggy devices and input should always be
> sanitised so I suggest adding that check before calling clamp() (which
> expects min <= max) so that the result here is well-defined.
Makes sense, I will do so in the next revision.
Thanks.
Chris
