[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/edid: Adding common CVT inferred modes when monitor allows range limited ones trough EDID.
tiwai at suse.de
Fri Apr 13 08:20:59 PDT 2012
At Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:55:16 -0400,
Adam Jackson wrote:
> On 4/13/12 10:29 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:14:46 -0400,
> > Adam Jackson wrote:
> >> Yeah, that's a bug. That's why I said it should be renamed
> >> drm_dmt_modes_for_range and run unconditionally if we find a range
> >> descriptor.
> > Yeah, I saw your patches. Should the further work base on them?
> Would be nice.
> > Yesterday I've read a news reporting that 1366x768 is the most
> > commonly used panel now, more than 1024x768. And, 1600x900 is in the
> > second place of the modern laptop panels.
> > Windows and others do work with these resolutions on the same
> > monitor. Why Linux driver can't? Everbody (but developers) thinks
> > like that way.
> I think you're trying to make me defend a position I wasn't taking...
Heh, don't take it offensive.
> >> If it's not the native panel size and it's not a commonly found size in
> >> the wild, why are we obligated to provide them for every user? Remember
> >> that userspace has the ability to hand in modes from above.
> > I don't think we need to support all wild modes, too. But the _very_
> > common modes like 1366x768 and 1600x900 should be really supported as
> > default.
> I'm not disagreeing. I think common sizes should be available, and we
> have code already that's intended to do that.
> My issue with the list in the patch is it contains some nonsense. If
> some of those more weird-looking sizes _do_ exist in the wild they
> should be already present in EDID as the native size. For panels where
> they're not native I have difficulty imagining anyone wanting to set
> that mode intentionally. And for someone who really does want it they
> have the ability to pass in arbitrary crap from userspace anyway.
> 1600x900 is reasonable to add to an "extras" list, because it is
> actually common despite not being in DMT. I'm even willing to take
> Windows as the example for what modes should be in the extras list. But
> I'm not willing to take "I wish this was in a preset list" as the sole
I agree with your point, too. When I worked on supporting these modes
in X server side, I didn't pick up all such modes but only really de
facto standard ones. It should suffice for most demands, indeed.
Also, we don't have to add always 1600x900 or 1366x768. Such a mode
is necessary basically only when the laptop panel resolution isn't
found in the mode list. We may add it selectively, too.
More information about the Intel-gfx