[Intel-gfx] possible quirks addition

Adam Jackson ajax at redhat.com
Mon Oct 19 18:05:43 CEST 2009

On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 15:10 +0000, The Fungi wrote:

>         EDID_DATA:
>                 00ffffffffffff004dd9f80101010101
>                 000e0103800000780a0dc9a057479827
>                 12484c20000001010101010101010101
>                 010101010101011d8018711c1620582c
>                 250010090000009e8c0ad08a20e02d10
>                 103e9600040300000018000000fc0053
>                 4f4e592054560a2020202020000000fd
>                 003b3d0f2e08000a20202020202001df

That's... unfortunate.  It should be twice as long as this (the 01 in
the second-to-last byte is the number of extension blocks to follow).
What version of the X server and intel driver are you using?

> The 720x480 mode isn't really functional (that's the one it clips to
> 640x480 when displaying, thinking its supposed to be 480p with 4:3
> aspect).

This, I think, is just TVs being hateful.  Despite now actually having a
pixel-precise transmission format, content is still sent set in from the
edges (think sports tickers) because some people will try to jam it onto
old NTSC displays that overscan.  Digital displays then go out of their
way to implement overscanning so the content actually goes out to the
edges and "looks bigger", which to a naïve consumer looks better.

So, see if you've got an option for overscan or aspect stretching in the
TV's menu, and turn it off if you can.

> It also supports ATSC-standard interlaced modes up to
> 1080i, but I haven't had any luck to date getting interlacing to
> work with this driver--is the interlace option supposed to be
> functional for digital outputs? Thanks again!

This is the real problem with your display though.  It claims 1080i as
the preferred mode, but then that's getting filtered away for some
reason.  I can't see any obvious reason for that in the kernel code;
does your X log say anything about "Not using mode [...]" ?

If we got this right, then the 720x480 bug would be more or less moot.

It's almost certain we're getting this wrong in more than one way
though.  We're not correcting for the way TVs encode interlaced modes to
match the way X expects it internally (your TV is saying "540 lines,
interlaced up by 2", which is technically more honest, but X expects it
to be "1080 lines interlaced down by 2").

- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20091019/d1eae02a/attachment.sig>

More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list