At Mon, 02 Jul 2012 15:46:29 -0400,
Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> On 6/26/12 3:21 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> > From: Takashi Iwai
> > Subject: [PATCH] drm: edid: Don't add inferred modes with higher resolution
> >
> > When a monitor EDID doesn't give the preferred bit, driver assumes
> > that the mod
At Mon, 02 Jul 2012 15:46:29 -0400,
Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> On 6/26/12 3:21 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> > From: Takashi Iwai
> > Subject: [PATCH] drm: edid: Don't add inferred modes with higher resolution
> >
> > When a monitor EDID doesn't give the preferred bit, driver assumes
> > that the mod
On 6/26/12 3:21 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> From: Takashi Iwai
> Subject: [PATCH] drm: edid: Don't add inferred modes with higher resolution
>
> When a monitor EDID doesn't give the preferred bit, driver assumes
> that the mode with the higest resolution and rate is the preferred
> mode. Meanwhile
On 6/26/12 3:21 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
From: Takashi Iwai
Subject: [PATCH] drm: edid: Don't add inferred modes with higher resolution
When a monitor EDID doesn't give the preferred bit, driver assumes
that the mode with the higest resolution and rate is the preferred
mode. Meanwhile the rece
On 06/26/2012 02:21 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:38:56 +0200,
> Sven Joachim wrote:
>>
>> Am 25.06.2012 um 21:24 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
>>
> And, does the patch below help?
Somewhat: at least I get 1280x1024 again, but at 60 rather than 75 Hz.
>>>
>>> I guess it wor
On 2012-06-30 20:46 +0200, Calvin Owens wrote:
> I had the exact same problem as Sven, bisected to
> cb21aafe121b1c3ad4c77cc5c22320163f16ba42.
> Takashi's patch (supra) fixes the issue for me.
For me as well. Sorry for the slightly belated reply, was busy with
other things in the last few days.
At Sat, 30 Jun 2012 13:46:54 -0500,
Calvin Owens wrote:
>
> On 06/26/2012 02:21 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:38:56 +0200,
> > Sven Joachim wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 25.06.2012 um 21:24 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
> >>
> > And, does the patch below help?
>
> Somewhat: at lea
On 2012-06-30 20:46 +0200, Calvin Owens wrote:
> I had the exact same problem as Sven, bisected to
> cb21aafe121b1c3ad4c77cc5c22320163f16ba42.
> Takashi's patch (supra) fixes the issue for me.
For me as well. Sorry for the slightly belated reply, was busy with
other things in the last few days.
On 06/26/2012 02:21 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:38:56 +0200,
> Sven Joachim wrote:
>>
>> Am 25.06.2012 um 21:24 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
>>
> And, does the patch below help?
Somewhat: at least I get 1280x1024 again, but at 60 rather than 75 Hz.
>>>
>>> I guess it wor
At Sat, 30 Jun 2012 13:46:54 -0500,
Calvin Owens wrote:
>
> On 06/26/2012 02:21 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:38:56 +0200,
> > Sven Joachim wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 25.06.2012 um 21:24 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
> >>
> > And, does the patch below help?
>
> Somewhat: at lea
At Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:38:56 +0200,
Sven Joachim wrote:
>
> Am 25.06.2012 um 21:24 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
>
> >> > And, does the patch below help?
> >>
> >> Somewhat: at least I get 1280x1024 again, but at 60 rather than 75 Hz.
> >
> > I guess it worked casually because 1280x1024 at 75 was the hi
At Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:38:56 +0200,
Sven Joachim wrote:
>
> Am 25.06.2012 um 21:24 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
>
> >> > And, does the patch below help?
> >>
> >> Somewhat: at least I get 1280x1024 again, but at 60 rather than 75 Hz.
> >
> > I guess it worked casually because 1280x1024@75 was the highe
Andy Furniss wrote:
> HDMI TV - lots of new modes but it already advertised all the CVT that
> it supports and all the new are bogus.
Oops CEA not CVT.
Am 25.06.2012 um 21:24 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
>> > And, does the patch below help?
>>
>> Somewhat: at least I get 1280x1024 again, but at 60 rather than 75 Hz.
>
> I guess it worked casually because 1280x1024 at 75 was the highest
> resolution / rate, so it was picked up as the preferred mode...
Takashi Iwai wrote:
>> The xrandr command shows various bogus modes.
>
> Can't these values be displayed on your monitor at all?
> If they can be displayed, they are valid modes, not really bogus.
> After all, they are values that EDID of your montor advertises as
> available ranges.
I have alrea
At Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:40:48 +0200,
Sven Joachim wrote:
>
> Am 25.06.2012 um 17:53 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
>
> > Looking at the EDID data, the problem is likely that your monitor
> > doesn't give the proper preferred mode.
> > What does xrandr output show?
>
> ,
> | Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200
Am 25.06.2012 um 17:53 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
> Looking at the EDID data, the problem is likely that your monitor
> doesn't give the proper preferred mode.
> What does xrandr output show?
,
| Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1280 x 1024, maximum 8192 x 8192
| DVI-I-1 connected 1280x1024+0+
At Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:53:12 +0200,
Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> And, does the patch below help?
BTW, the patch below contains the possible generic fix.
It seems that EDID_QUIRK_FIRST_DETAILED_PREFERRED handling is missing
from the beginning. So I wrote it just from what I can imagine from
the commen
At Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:03:36 +0200,
Sven Joachim wrote:
>
> After upgrading to Linux 3.5-rc4 from 3.4.4, I noticed that my monitor
> switched to a resolution of 1280x960 rather than the native 1280x1024,
> and nouveau has set up a framebuffer of 1680x945. It goes without
> saying that the result
After upgrading to Linux 3.5-rc4 from 3.4.4, I noticed that my monitor
switched to a resolution of 1280x960 rather than the native 1280x1024,
and nouveau has set up a framebuffer of 1680x945. It goes without
saying that the result looks terrible.
Bisecting shows that the problem started with comm
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 19:40 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > And, does the patch below help?
>
> Somewhat: at least I get 1280x1024 again, but at 60 rather than 75 Hz.
That is, in fact, what your monitor claims to prefer.
> The xrandr command shows various bogus modes.
Most of which my patch ser
Andy Furniss wrote:
HDMI TV - lots of new modes but it already advertised all the CVT that
it supports and all the new are bogus.
Oops CEA not CVT.
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listin
Takashi Iwai wrote:
The xrandr command shows various bogus modes.
Can't these values be displayed on your monitor at all?
If they can be displayed, they are valid modes, not really bogus.
After all, they are values that EDID of your montor advertises as
available ranges.
I have already comme
Am 25.06.2012 um 21:24 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
>> > And, does the patch below help?
>>
>> Somewhat: at least I get 1280x1024 again, but at 60 rather than 75 Hz.
>
> I guess it worked casually because 1280x1024@75 was the highest
> resolution / rate, so it was picked up as the preferred mode...
Qui
At Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:40:48 +0200,
Sven Joachim wrote:
>
> Am 25.06.2012 um 17:53 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
>
> > Looking at the EDID data, the problem is likely that your monitor
> > doesn't give the proper preferred mode.
> > What does xrandr output show?
>
> ,
> | Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 19:40 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > And, does the patch below help?
>
> Somewhat: at least I get 1280x1024 again, but at 60 rather than 75 Hz.
That is, in fact, what your monitor claims to prefer.
> The xrandr command shows various bogus modes.
Most of which my patch ser
Am 25.06.2012 um 17:53 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
> Looking at the EDID data, the problem is likely that your monitor
> doesn't give the proper preferred mode.
> What does xrandr output show?
,
| Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1280 x 1024, maximum 8192 x 8192
| DVI-I-1 connected 1280x1024+0+
At Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:53:12 +0200,
Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> And, does the patch below help?
BTW, the patch below contains the possible generic fix.
It seems that EDID_QUIRK_FIRST_DETAILED_PREFERRED handling is missing
from the beginning. So I wrote it just from what I can imagine from
the commen
At Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:03:36 +0200,
Sven Joachim wrote:
>
> After upgrading to Linux 3.5-rc4 from 3.4.4, I noticed that my monitor
> switched to a resolution of 1280x960 rather than the native 1280x1024,
> and nouveau has set up a framebuffer of 1680x945. It goes without
> saying that the result
After upgrading to Linux 3.5-rc4 from 3.4.4, I noticed that my monitor
switched to a resolution of 1280x960 rather than the native 1280x1024,
and nouveau has set up a framebuffer of 1680x945. It goes without
saying that the result looks terrible.
Bisecting shows that the problem started with comm
30 matches
Mail list logo
