From d61e7380b402a481ab1fa8027068a24918f701c8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kyle McMartin <kyle@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:31:53 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] drm: edid revision 0 is valid
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 <marko.ristola@kolumbus.fi>
Signed-off-by: Kyle McMartin <kyle@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Signed-off-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c
index e902b1cefc06..a839a28d8ee6 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;
}
--
2.20.1