[Openchrome-devel] openchrome 0.6.0 regressions on VX900 laptop

[Kevin Brace]

Hi Bartosz,

Okay, I tried to look for this elusive VX900 chipset laptop, but I could not find any information other than some benchmark numbers and compatible Windows 7 device drivers.
I plan to port the next generation OpenChrome DRM's HDMI code to the existing OpenChrome DDX, but due to other things I had to work on, the work has stalled for the past few weeks.
Equipment wise, I have ZOTAC ZBOX nano VD01 and ECS VX900-I.

Regards,

Kevin Brace
The OpenChrome Project maintainer / developer


> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 at 10:10 AM
> From: Bartosz <gang65 at wp.pl>
> To: "Xavier Bachelot" <xavier at bachelot.org>, "Luc Verhaegen" <libv at skynet.be>
> Cc: "Kevin Brace" <kevinbrace at gmx.com>, openchrome-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: Re: [Openchrome-devel] openchrome 0.6.0 regressions on VX900 laptop
>
> Hi.
> I have the same L740 laptop and under Windows XP it report 1366x768
> resolution.
> 
> Do you know how to get dump of registers under Windows?
> I would like to VGA or HDMI and check how registers are looks like.
> 
> Maybe Luc have some experience with dumping registers under Windows.
> 
> Best Regards
> Bartosz
> 
> 2017-03-18 23:37 GMT+01:00 Xavier Bachelot <xavier at bachelot.org>:
> 
> > Hi Kevin,
> >
> > On 18/03/2017 22:32, Kevin Brace wrote:
> > > Hi Xavier,
> > >
> > > Sorry for missing the reply for several days, but I have been
> > > thinking about this issue for the past few days.
> >
> > No worries.
> >
> > > I have several possible explanations as to why things are not
> > > working. Of course, it is not proven so you will need to test it
> > > yourself. Xavier, since you mentioned pitch, I noticed that when
> > > reading the Xorg.0.log, I noticed that the screen resolution is 1368
> > > x 768. I believe the correct resolution is 1366 x 768. I know that
> > > sounds strange, but VIA EPIA-M830 user manual lists the panel index,
> > > and it assigns 1366 x 768 for panel index 10. Yes, 1366 is a number
> > > that is not dividable by 8, but for some reason, the flat panel
> > > industry uses this odd resolution for some FPs.
> >
> > That doesn't surprise me that much, iirc the (now mostly defunct)
> > Samsung NC20 I own used 1366x768 too. I'd really need to fix it someday...
> >
> > > You might be wondering why this causes the old code which allowed
> > > IGA1 to work fine with 1366 x 768 flat panel, but not with IGA2. Due
> > > to the way IBM developed VGA (and probably this goes back to EGA and
> > > even Motorola MC6845 I suppose), when IGA1 horizontal display period
> > > is set, the value being set has to be shifted by 3 bit positions (8
> > > pixel boundary). IGA1 pretty much drags the original VGA way of
> > > setting the horizontal display period since it is a superset of VGA,
> > > but IGA2 is implemented without such restriction since it is a clean
> > > sheet design. IGA2 horizontal resolution can be set at 1 pixel
> > > boundary. Since you were using 1368 instead of 1366, this means that
> > > all other display parameters get messed up like blank period and sync
> > > period as well.
> >
> > Just gave it a try with 1366x768 instead of 1368x768, but that doesn't
> > help. The screen is still distorted, not the same, but similarly. Also,
> > the part of the screen displaying a picture is now bigger, it's covering
> > half the height of the screen, rather than one third with 1368x768.
> >
> > > I know that the screen can easily get messed up if these numbers are
> > > off even slightly, so this might be why you are seeing a distorted
> > > picture with V2 and V3 patches I sent to you. That being said, you
> > > said you are seeing a cursor with the V2 and V3 patches that
> > > previously did not display.
> >
> > The only condition I was not sure there was a cursor is when using 0.6.0
> > + panel id fix (1368x768) + via_regs_dump -w 3d5.99 0x11
> > I just checked and the cursor is there too.
> > Both v2 and v3 also have the cursor.
> > Oh, and not sure I mentioned it, the cursor looks fine. it's not
> > distorted in any way.
> >
> > > This probably means that not specifying IGA2 for LVDS1 was one of the
> > > reason why the screen regression happened, but also 1366 vs. 1368
> > > issue came into play, and I also speculate IGA2 itself is far more
> > > sensitive to the display period being off by even 2 pixels.
> > >
> > Let's assume the Epia M830 manual is correct.
> > I can't get my hands on the manual for this laptop to make sure of the
> > expected resolution (assuming the manual specify it and is correct
> > indeed) at the moment, I will need to dig deeper, I'm not even sure
> > there was one in the first place. Can't find it on the net either, this
> > is a noname computer, likely a reference design for VIA, who sent it to
> > me for testing purposes back in the days.
> > dmidecode says :
> >         Manufacturer: iDOT Computers, Inc.
> >         Product Name: L740
> >
> > Any other idea ?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Xavier
> >
> >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Kevin Brace The OpenChrome Project maintainer / developer
> > >
> > >
> > >> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 11:17 AM From: "Xavier Bachelot"
> > >> <xavier at bachelot.org> To: "Kevin Brace" <kevinbrace at gmx.com> Cc:
> > >> openchrome-devel at lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re:
> > >> [Openchrome-devel] openchrome 0.6.0 regressions on VX900 laptop
> > >>
> > >> Hi Kevin,
> > >>
> > >> On 15/03/2017 23:33, Kevin Brace wrote:
> > >>> Try this third version of the patch. I changed the FP power on /
> > >>> off code to use software controlled method already proven with
> > >>> CX700 / VX700 and VX800 chipsets.
> > >>>
> > >> No improvement over patch v2 with patch v3. I haven't collected
> > >> neither log nor regs dump though.
> > >>
> > >> I started to poke at register manually after applying v2 the other
> > >> day, but no luck. Is there any specific range of registers that are
> > >> more likely than others to help ?
> > >>
> > >> Would a picture of the distorted screen, together with a picture of
> > >> how it should look like, help ? I don't know how to describe the
> > >> distortion, a picture is worth a thousand word :-) The display is
> > >> compressed in the top third or half of the screen, and diagonally
> > >> stretched to the right. The remaining bottom part of the screen
> > >> seems like uninitialized memory. It seems like the framebuffer is
> > >> using a different horizontal resolution than the display. Could it
> > >> be something like wrong "pitch" ?
> > >>
> > >> Regards, Xavier
> > >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Openchrome-devel mailing list
> > Openchrome-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openchrome-devel
> >
>