ATI Drivers report bogus dot_clock to xvidtune

[Alex Deucher]

On 3/29/06, Egbert Eich <eich at suse.de> wrote:
> Alex Deucher writes:
>  >
>  > How would you propose we handle having 2 heads with different timings
>  > be handled by one screen in a reasonable fashion?  Unfortunately,
>  > mergedfb is a hack.  The X driver infrastructure was not built to
>  > handle multiple crtcs with one instance of the driver.  If you have
>  > one head at 1024x768 at 60 and the other at 1280x1024 at 85 what should we
>  > set the "meta" clock to?  Also we want to allow you to have another
>  > metamode of 1024x768 at 60 and 1280x1024 at 75 and not have the mode parser
>  > throw it out. Then throw in crtc orientations (left, right, clone).
>  >
>
> Do you mean the mode validator? I haven't investigated why it doesn't
> throw out modes with the clock values that the radeon driver supplies.
>

yeah, that's what I meant.  Sorry.

> I'm aware that a clock value for a meta mode is pretty meaningless.
> However one could try to pick sane clocks (ie. such that they are in
> a range so that the refresh values are in a range the user expects).
>

I should look into a better approach.

> Yes, it is true that the X driver infrastructure is particularly broken
> when it comes to multiple heads per driver. All this was designed for was
> to get the G400 going.

any ideas? ;)  Is it worth fixing the driver infrastructure or should
we just wait and do it right with egl or some such?  Perhaps we can
base the drivers on Entities rather than Screens, then store a list of
associated screen pointers with each driver instance.

Alex

>
> Cheers,
>         Egbert.
>