Re: approval_X11R6.8.x requested: [Bug 1490] DDC code confused by EDID V1.3 : [Attachment 1122] Fix

Thomas Winischhofer wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> 
>> Alan Coopersmith <[email protected]> has asked  for 
>> approval_X11R6.8.x:
>> Bug 1490: DDC code confused by EDID V1.3
>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1490
>>
>> Attachment 1122: Fix
>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=1122&action=edit
>> _______________________________________________
>> release-wranglers mailing list
>> release-wranglers-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/release-wranglers
>>
> 
> -------
> 
> -get_display_section(Uchar *c, struct disp_features *r)
> +get_display_section(Uchar *c, struct disp_features *r,
> +            struct edid_version *v)
>  {
>      r->input_type = INPUT_TYPE;
> -    r->input_voltage = INPUT_VOLTAGE;
> -    r->input_setup = SETUP;
> -    r->input_sync = SYNC;
> +    if (!DIGITAL(r->input_type)) {
> +    r->input_voltage = INPUT_VOLTAGE;
> +    r->input_setup = SETUP;
> +    r->input_sync = SYNC;
> +    } else if (v->version > 1 || v->revision > 2)
> +    r->input_dfp = DFP;
>      r->hsize = HSIZE_MAX;
>      r->vsize = VSIZE_MAX;
>      r->gamma = GAMMA;
> @@ -97,15 +115,20 @@
>  }
> 
> ------
> 
> Hm, where is it stated that the "digital input" bit requires EDID 
> version >= 1.3?


OK, the PDF standard (Feb 1999) says that DFP compliant panels are at 
least to support EDID 1.2 (page 10).

So the (revision > 2) should be (revision >= 2) in the if statement.

Thomas

-- 
Thomas Winischhofer
Vienna/Austria
thomas AT winischhofer DOT net	       *** http://www.winischhofer.net
twini AT xfree86 DOT org