<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - driver does not detect VGA monitor, but there is one" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94277#c8">Comment # 8</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - driver does not detect VGA monitor, but there is one" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94277">bug 94277</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:bensberg@justemail.net" title="Benno Schulenberg <bensberg@justemail.net>"> Benno Schulenberg</a> <pre> Hi Kevin, No problems with the "reverting" part. :) It was just to see whether it would work. (In reply to Kevin Brace from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=94277#c6">comment #6</a>) > Perhaps, I can change the code to remove manual VGA detection code, and just > assume that a VGA monitor exists even if VGA monitor was not detected via > I2C buses. I wouldn't remove any detecttion code -- it's always nice to actually detect something, if possible, and to see in the log that it /was/ detected. But indeed, when in the end nothing at all can be detected, simply enabling the VGA output as a fallback seems like a sensible idea. Especially since there apparently exist faulty I2C busses and degraded monitors. (That is: /if/ this cannot damage the chip in any way when in fact there is nothing at all VGA-like connected to the chip's pins.) One other little I'd change is this line: > > [ 22.858] (II) CHROME(0): EDID for output VGA-1 Don't print that line unless actually an EDID was found, or at least change the wording to something like: "Looking for an EDID for output VGA-1...". Sorry, no, I don't have any other monitor or cable available. I did unplug and replug the cable -- it appears to be in good shape. On both sides pin 9 is missing, though, which is supposed to be +5V. Would that prevent the I2C bus from working?</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>