From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758238AbZBYBce (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:32:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756419AbZBYBcE (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:32:04 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:49176 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756199AbZBYBb5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:31:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:31:53 -0500 From: Kyle McMartin To: airlied@redhat.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, marko.ristola@kolumbus.fi Subject: [PATCH] drm: edid revision 0 is valid Message-ID: <20090225013153.GC6690@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Kyle McMartin edid->revision == 0 should be valid (at least, so the error message indicates. :) and wikipedia seems to indicate that EDID 1.0 existed. We can dump the entire check, since edid->revision is a u8, so it can't ever be less than 0. Marko reports in RH bz#476735 that his monitor claims to be EDID 1.0, and therefore hits the check and is stuck at 800x600 because of it. Reported-by: Marko Ristola Signed-off-by: Kyle McMartin --- diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c index 5a4d324..ec14dd8 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ static bool edid_is_valid(struct edid *edid) DRM_ERROR("EDID has major version %d, instead of 1\n", edid->version); goto bad; } - if (edid->revision <= 0 || edid->revision > 3) { + if (edid->revision > 3) { DRM_ERROR("EDID has minor version %d, which is not between 0-3\n", edid->revision); goto bad; }