<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEEDINFO " title="NEEDINFO - Wrong max TMDS clock rate on ThinkPad W541 mini-DisplayPort output" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107585#c3">Comment # 3</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEEDINFO " title="NEEDINFO - Wrong max TMDS clock rate on ThinkPad W541 mini-DisplayPort output" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107585">bug 107585</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:jani.nikula@intel.com" title="Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>"> Jani Nikula</a> <pre>(In reply to Simon from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=107585#c1">comment #1</a>) > As a last-ditch attempt to be friendlier to users, I'd propose at least > making an educated guess about the maximum TMDS clockrate based on which > generation of Intel Graphics chipset is driving the port. It's not about the GPU, it's about the adapters. The user could plug in anything, and if we are unable to query it, the safe bet is to default to 165 MHz. As I wrote in my email, for the benefit of others: > With some adapters, we are unable to detect the adapter/sink max > rate. If we incorrectly assume 300 MHz and it's really 165 MHz, the > result is a black screen. If we incorrectly assume 165 MHz and it's > really 300 MHz, the result is a picture on screen albeit with a worse > resolution than the user wants. >From my POV, it's generally much more peaceful to deal with people whose bug is a degraded screen than with people whose bug is a black screen. ;)</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>