Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 May 2009 15:14:39 -0700 | From | Jesse Barnes <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] drm: ignore LVDS on intel graphics systems that lie about having it |
| |
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:39:17 -0700 Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:29:53 -0400 > Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Monday 06 April 2009 12:52:16 Jesse Barnes wrote: > > > On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:11:25 -0400 > > > Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > There are a number of small form factor desktop systems with > > > > Intel mobile graphics chips that lie and say they have an LVDS. > > > > With kernel mode-setting, this becomes a problem, and makes > > > > native resolution boot go haywire -- for example, my Dell > > > > Studio Hybrid, hooked to a 1920x1080 display claims to have a > > > > 1024x768 LVDS, and the resulting graphical boot on the > > > > 1920x1080 display uses only the top left 1024x768, and > > > > auto-configured X will end up only 1024x768 as well. With this > > > > change, graphical boot and X both do 1920x1080 as expected. > > > > > > > > Note that we're simply embracing and extending the early > > > > bail-out code in place for the Mac Mini here. The xorg intel > > > > driver uses pci subsystem device and vendor id for matching, > > > > while we're using dmi lookups here. The MSI addition is > > > > courtesy of and tested by Bill Nottingham. > > > > > > > > One minor issue... Current Fedora rawhide, video playback using > > > > Xv makes X go off into the weeds with this patch added, but > > > > that's a bug elsewhere, still confident this patch DTRT. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com> > > > > Tested-by: Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com> > > > > > > The 2D driver has a similar set of quirks, but since we started > > > that list we've found that the VBIOS should contain a pretty > > > reliable table indicating which outputs are available, including > > > LVDS. I think if we can figure out how to parse it reliably > > > (accounting for VBIOS versioning and structure size changes) we > > > shouldn't need this patch. If we can't get that done in time for > > > 2.6.30 though I'm all for including this. > > > > Sounds like a plan to me. Either way, would this patch still make > > sense for submission to the 2.6.29.x stable series? I've already > > tacked it onto the Fedora 2.6.29 kernel builds, fwiw. > > Yeah would be fine for 2.6.29 as far as I'm concerned, but there's an > "upstream first" policy for the stable series that might get in the > way...
Ok we've failed on this one, so we should go ahead an add the LVDS quirk. Can you resend this to Eric so it gets into 2.6.30-final?
Thanks, -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
| |