On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Mar 2014, Kenneth de Mello <kdemello1980@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> What about dual-link DVI? I though the additional link addressed the >> pixel clock limitation. Has it only been using a single link this entire >> time, and it's only worked by ignoring the maximum dotclock, so in other >> words, the fact it works at all is the bug? >> >> Also, the commit that rejects mode exceeding 165MHz states: >> >> "Single-link DVI max dotclock is 165MHz. Filter out modes with higher >> dotclock when the monitor doesn't support HDMI." >> >> Does this mean HDMI in general? This monitor does support HDMI, but the >> maximum resolution when using the physical HDMI ports is 1920x1080. >> >> What is the solution here, to switch to displayport if I want to use kernel >> 3.13.7 and beyond? (This is fine, I just need to know so I can buy the >> cable). > > For further details please see the bug report [1]. > > The reason for the change was that modes with higher than 165 MHz > dotclock are invalid for single-link DVI. We don't support dual-link DVI > natively. Thus this is about HDMI->DVI adapters which are either > dual-link DVI (Ville says highly unlikely) or single-link DVI that allow > higher than 165 MHz dotclock in the monitor end. I'm not sure how we > could distinguish that from a regular single-link DVI that *is* bound by > the maximum dotclock. > > Product details for the adapter you're using might be interesting. DVI->HDMI adapters are just wires. If you plug a HDMI monitor via one of those and the hw can do HDMI speed single links it should work in theory, since the EDID would show a HDMI monitor. The DVI limitations are actually the cables rather than the connectors from what I understand, but I could be misinformed. Dave. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
