My common situation is a DDC/EDID capable display behind a KVM that only passes DDC/EDID to the selected port. On a reboot unless the system being rebooted is selected on the KVM it does not come up at full resolution. Very few KVMs pass DDC/EDID to the non-selected ports. I also have a case at work using an industrial LCD 1280x1024 rackmount touch screen that has NO DDC/EDID and is still in production.
dave -----Original Message----- From: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Adam Jackson Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:52 PM To: Development discussions related to Fedora Subject: Re: F14/F13 - system-config-display - should it work? On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 15:00 -0400, Felix Miata wrote: > EDID & DDC are mere conveniences unnecessary to the function of the > device. I really couldn't care less whether EDID/DDC exists, much less > works. What matters (works just fine) from a display, which may have > been manufactured before the invention of DDC or EDID, is its output > qualities. DDC1 was spec'd in 1994. Version 3.0 of the DDC standard, which included the I²C-based DDC2 protocol that most drivers implement, was released in 1997; I'm reasonably sure it was also documented in Version 2 of that standard, which appears to have been 1995 or so according to light googling for press releases. (DDC1 was a remarkable botch that involved overclocking the vertical sync pulse and using that to transfer data. Eeeeek.) The oldest (instance of the minimal) CPU architecture we support is the Pentium Pro, which was also 1995. I'm touched by your concern for such antiquarian hardware, but I'm quite comfortable saying it's not a design goal to work on hardware that's now old enough to get a driver's license. - ajax -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
