On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:25:13 +1000, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
wrote:
From: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
Merged.
903e0f6..5f34853 master - master
--
keith.pack...@intel.com
I wasn't going to say anything, but I have an XGI Volari hanging on my wall
with a Dx9 sticker on it. I've just been too
lazy/incompetent/indifferent/much of an AMD whore to get started on KMS for
it. My Didj and Ego share a similar fate, along with other various video
cards. Modern and rare
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Corbin Simpson
mostawesomed...@gmail.com wrote:
I wasn't going to say anything, but I have an XGI Volari hanging on my wall
with a Dx9 sticker on it. I've just been too
lazy/incompetent/indifferent/much of an AMD whore to get started on KMS for
it. My Didj and
On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 11:38 -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:25:13 +1000, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
wrote:
+ if (!scrp-monitor-maxPixClock !specified) {
+type = default ;
+scrp-monitor-maxPixClock = 65000.0;
+}
Can
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:38:36 -0500, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 08:55 -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:07:40 -0500, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
Now if it seems to you wrong that we're trying to overlay magic values
on this logic
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 07:24:29PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 01:05:09PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
For external monitors most from the last 10 years are geared towards
10x7 or larger which seems like a sufficiently large time horizon
for bumping the default.
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:06:21PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
Perhaps this is why certain vendors don't want to work with Xorg. We
target 1990 hardware to the detriment of modern desktops.
Alex
Sure, that's what statements like whatever we do will get reinvented
anyway mean.
Luc
From: Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:38:25 -0800
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:25:13 +1000, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
wrote:
+ if (!scrp-monitor-maxPixClock !specified) {
+type = default ;
+scrp-monitor-maxPixClock =
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:25:13AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
From: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
---
hw/xfree86/common/xf86Mode.c | 21 -
1 files changed, 16
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:25:13AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
From: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
---
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:26:04AM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote:
Isn't the standard supposed to be those 14 vga fishbowls, which did
only up to 1024x768 interlaced? Which is iirc, the timing given
originally...
#
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:26:04AM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote:
Isn't the standard supposed to be those 14 vga fishbowls, which did
only up to 1024x768
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:44:22AM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:26:04AM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote:
Isn't the standard
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:44:22AM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:26:04AM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 01:05:09PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
But most people, I would wager, prefer 10x7 to 8x6 as a default.
It would be nice if dialogs were that good, but a lot of them assume
10x7 or 12x8 at a minimum. If you have an internal panel what's
ending up with anything other
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:31:00 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis
mark.kette...@xs4all.nl wrote:
To prevent you from getting a headache from low-refresh-rate 1024x768
modes on CRTs?
Sure, providing a new default value for the pixel clock, but I guess I
don't understand how the maxPixClock was set in
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 05:37:13PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
When you are hitting this code, then your monitor was not identified.
This is not the case for that vast majority of people that you are
mentioning here, or at least it shouldn't be the case. For that tiny
fraction that should
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 08:51:04PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 07:44:24PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The common case for hitting this case now is that you have a projector
behind a display mux that doesn't do DDC. Most projectors are able to do
1024x768.
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 08:01:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 08:51:04PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 07:44:24PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The common case for hitting this case now is that you have a projector
behind a display mux
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 09:03:56PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
Just because KMS does it, doesn't mean X should do it too.
The absence of complaints about KMS exploding people's monitors implies
that nobody is actually running modern software on these displays, and
so catering for them is
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 08:06:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 09:03:56PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
Just because KMS does it, doesn't mean X should do it too.
The absence of complaints about KMS exploding people's monitors implies
that nobody is actually
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 09:08:57PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 08:06:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The absence of complaints about KMS exploding people's monitors implies
that nobody is actually running modern software on these displays, and
so catering for
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 08:14:36PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We provide pretty much no support for hardware that's the same vintage
as the monitors you're talking about. Why would the people using these
monitors be running current versions of X? Why would they not be able to
write an
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 09:17:26PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 08:14:36PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We provide pretty much no support for hardware that's the same vintage
as the monitors you're talking about. Why would the people using these
monitors be
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 08:20:49PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I think the benefit in supporting drivers for hardware that hasn't been
manufactured in 16 years is pretty minimal, but nobody's saying Don't
support old monitors. They're saying People using old monitors can
write an
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 09:25:05PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 08:20:49PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I think the benefit in supporting drivers for hardware that hasn't been
manufactured in 16 years is pretty minimal, but nobody's saying Don't
support old
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 08:14:36PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We provide pretty much no support for hardware that's the same vintage
as the monitors you're talking about. Why would the people using these
monitors be running current versions of X? Why would they not be able to
write an
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 09:29:44PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 08:14:36PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We provide pretty much no support for hardware that's the same vintage
as the monitors you're talking about. Why would the people using these
monitors be
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 09:17:26PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 08:14:36PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We provide pretty much no support for hardware that's the same vintage
as the monitors you're talking about. Why would the people using these
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 08:32:18PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 09:29:44PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
And just how certain are you that 1024x768 is going to help all those
cases with missing EDID compared to 800x600?
Because the common case for missing EDID is
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Luc Verhaegen l...@skynet.be wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 08:32:18PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 09:29:44PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
And just how certain are you that 1024x768 is going to help all those
cases with missing EDID
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:25:13 +1000, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
wrote:
+ if (!scrp-monitor-maxPixClock !specified) {
+type = default ;
+scrp-monitor-maxPixClock = 65000.0;
+}
Can you explain this part? Seems like this goes beyond changing the
From: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
---
hw/xfree86/common/xf86Mode.c | 21 -
1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/xfree86/common/xf86Mode.c
33 matches
Mail list logo
