On Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:04:38PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> Only an EDID CEA extension has byte #3, while the CTA DisplayID Data
>> Block does not. Don't interpret bogus data for color formats.
>
> I think what we might want eventually is a cleaner s
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:04:38PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> Only an EDID CEA extension has byte #3, while the CTA DisplayID Data
>> Block does not. Don't interpret bogus data for color formats.
>
> I think what we might want eventually is a cleaner s
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:04:38PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> Only an EDID CEA extension has byte #3, while the CTA DisplayID Data
> Block does not. Don't interpret bogus data for color formats.
I think what we might want eventually is a cleaner split between
the CTA data blocks vs. the rest of t
Only an EDID CEA extension has byte #3, while the CTA DisplayID Data
Block does not. Don't interpret bogus data for color formats.
For most displays it's probably an unlikely scenario you'd have a CTA
DisplayID Data Block without a CEA extension, but they do exist.
Fixes: e28ad544f462 ("drm/edid:
