On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Adam Jackson <ajax@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 19:14 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: >> On 2012-06-25 17:25 +0200, Adam Jackson wrote: >> >> > This fixes the extra_mode walk to be much more conservative. I still think >> > the whole idea is bogus and that guessing about clone mode sizes is a >> > userspace policy decision, but apparently xrandr --newmode / --addmode is >> > unreasonably burdensome. >> > >> > This should fix a number of reported regressions, please test. >> >> Does not help in my case, unfortunately: instead of a bogus 1680x945 >> resolution I get a bogus 1400x1050 rather than the correct 1280x1024. >> >> Going to try Takashi's patch instead. > > Takashi's patch will promite 1280x1024 to the default - which is correct > - but you'll still see a 1400x1050 in the mode list, because your > monitor claims a maximum pixel clock of 140MHz and maximum hsync of > 81kHz, and 1400x1050@60 fits in that. > > Fixing that would probably require additional quirk work to add > "preferred mode is physical pixel size". EDID 1.4 redefines the "first > detailed mode is preferred" bit to mean that anyway, but we're not > currently using that to filter the mode list. > Hey ajax still want these two patches in -next? I've got them on my unreviewed list. Dave. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
