On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 10:47 -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Adam Jackson <ajax@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > That's a valid point though: we currently don't distinguish between > > "connected but with broken EDID" and "disconnected". I think it sounds > > reasonable to treat the former as connector_status_unknown instead. > > That way, if nothing else is connected, X will still light you up at the > > fallback size. Sound right? > > Or maybe just mention the EDID is bad and may cause problems, but then > use as much of it as possible. That has the best chance of a > satisfied user and a native mode being selected. That would require a lot more parser work to make it robust in the face of suspicious-looking subsections. Not that we should never do that, but that I think it's the wrong strategy in general. I've really tended to shy away from being too permissive in what we accept from EDID, because the failure mode is picking a mode that the display doesn't support and coming up blank. I'd much rather play it safe if we're not 100% sure, especially since you can jam the correct mode in later with RANDR if you come up in a conservative mode. One thing that _would_ be cool is figuring out the common ways of writing to EDID EEPROMs and exposing some I-know-what-I'm-doing way of trying them, so we could repair bad displays. Also, DDC/CI sometimes gives you a way of knowing whether the monitor has synced, which would let us know whether a given mode was bad or not. - ajax
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
