Xorg7 + i810 driver + 915resolution = still can't go above 1600x1200.

[List Subscriber]

Yes, I suspected as much. The problem really appears to be elsewhere ...
its almost as if the resolution is being artificially upper-bounded at
1600x1200 by the driver.

To test this, I just removed any 915resolution mode injections letting
the V_BIOS report its native modes, the highest there being 1920x1440.
And indeed, xrandr (and the corresponding Xorg log entries) fail to
detect/report this mode. This establishes that even without any
tinkering whatsoever, modes higher than 1600x1200 are not being seen.

What then about non-standard modes *under* the 1600x1200 pixel count? I
injected 1680x1050 with 915resolution and lo and behold, it works perfectly!

So, I now believe that the i810-1.6 driver is forcibly bounding the
pixel count at around 1600x1200, at least for the 945G. If this is
indeed the case, is it then a regression in 1.6?



Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 15:45 -0700, List Subscriber wrote:
>> One additional, potentially relevant piece of information: the 810
>> module generates a couple of checksum warnings against the V_BIOS:
>>
>> Xorg.0.log:
>> -----------
>> ...
>> (II) I810(0): initializing int10
>> (WW) I810(0): Bad V_BIOS checksum
>> (II) I810(0): Primary V_BIOS segment is: 0xc000
>> ...
>> (II) I810(0): Will attempt to tell the BIOS that there is 12288 kB VideoRAM
>> (II) I810(0): initializing int10
>> (WW) I810(0): Bad V_BIOS checksum
>> (II) I810(0): Primary V_BIOS segment is: 0xc000
>> (II) I810(0): VESA BIOS detected
>> (II) I810(0): VESA VBE Version 3.0
>> (II) I810(0): VESA VBE Total Mem: 12288 kB
>> (II) I810(0): VESA VBE OEM: Intel(r)Lakeport-G Graphics Chip Accelerated V
>> ...
>> -----------
>>
>> Could it be that the driver is trying to be smart and discard the
>> 1920x1200 mode due to the bad checksum (presumable caused by the
>> 915resolution tinkering)?
> 
> In my experience, the log always WWarns about the bad checksum,
> tinkering or no.
> 
> -jwb
> 
>