Add a mechanism for DisplayID specific quirks, and add the first quirk
to ignore DisplayID section checksum errors.
It would be quite inconvenient to pass existing EDID quirks from
drm_edid.c for DisplayID parsing. Not all places doing DisplayID
iteration have the quirks readily available, and would have to pass it
in all places. Simply add a separate array of DisplayID specific EDID
quirks. We do end up checking it every time we iterate DisplayID blocks,
but hopefully the number of quirks remains small.
There are a few laptop models with DisplayID checksum failures, leading
to higher refresh rates only present in the DisplayID blocks being
ignored. Add a quirk for the panel in the machines.
Reported-by: Tiago Martins Araújo <tiago.martins.araujo@gmail.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/CACRbrPGvLP5LANXuFi6z0S7XMbAG4X5y2YOLBDxfOVtfGGqiKQ@mail.gmail.com
Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/i915/kernel/-/issues/14703
Acked-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Tested-by: Tiago Martins Araújo <tiago.martins.araujo@gmail.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/c04d81ae648c5f21b3f5b7953f924718051f2798.1761681968.git.jani.nikula@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Some newer high refresh rate consumer monitors (including those by Samsung)
make use of DisplayID 2.1 timing blocks in their EDID data, notably for
their highest refresh rate modes. Such modes won't be available as of now.
Implement partial support for such blocks in order to enable native
support of HRR modes of most such monitors for users without having to rely
on EDID patching/override (or need thereof).
Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/misc/kernel/-/issues/55
Suggested-by: Maximilian Boße <max@bosse.io>
Signed-off-by: Egor Vorontsov <sdoregor@sdore.me>
Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/d795d27c6f60596df402ff151ce29938e2ad4f53.1744708239.git.jani.nikula@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
DisplayID spec v1.3 revision history notes do claim that
the toplogy block was added in v1.3 so requiring structure
v1.2 would seem correct, but there is at least one EDID in
edid.tv with a topology block and structure v1.0. And
there are also EDIDs with DisplayID structure v1.3 which
seems to be totally incorrect as DisplayID spec v1.3 lists
structure v1.2 as the only legal value.
Unfortunately I couldn't find copies of DisplayID spec
v1.0-v1.2 anywhere (even on vesa.org), so I'll have to
go on empirical evidence alone.
We used to parse the topology block on all v1.x
structures until the check for structure v2.0 was added.
Let's go back to doing that as the evidence does suggest
that there are DisplayIDs in the wild that would miss
out on the topology stuff otherwise.
Also toss out DISPLAY_ID_STRUCTURE_VER_12 entirely as
it doesn't appear we can really use it for anything.
I *think* we could technically skip all the structure
version checks as the block tags shouldn't conflict
between v2.0 and v1.x. But no harm in having a bit of
extra sanity checks I guess.
So far I'm not aware of any user reported regressions
from overly strict check, but I do know that it broke
igt/kms_tiled_display's fake DisplayID as that one
gets generated with structure v1.0.
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Cc: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>
Fixes: c5a486af9d ("drm/edid: parse Tiled Display Topology Data Block for DisplayID 2.0")
Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20240410180139.21352-1-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com
Acked-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
