Richard Lynch writes:
 > While attempting (and failing) to find a ModeLine that works, I found 
 > some oddities.
 > 
 > I've put in some very wide ranges for Horizontal and Vertical timings.
 > 
 > The log file shows them as being accepted, near as I can tell.
 > 
 > Various ModeLines I was trying would be rejected "(illegal vertical 
 > timings)", but I just figured that was you guys being smart (yay!) 
 > and saving me from blowing up my monitor or something...

This means that the 4 timing parameters (display end, sync start, sync
end, total) are somehow not valid. If they were out of range the 
reason would be (??? out of range).

 > 
 > But then I put in one that was rejected, and the SAME numbers end up 
 > getting used anyway as one of the default settings.
 > 
 > Is that weird, or am I just not understanding something?

ModeLine "640x480" 12.00  640 648 664 688 480 480 480 490
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This modeline from the config file you've posted on the net
is bad. You cannot have a sync pulse width of 0.

 > 
 > I suppose it's possible that ModeLines from idiots (me) would be 
 > rejected as "dangerous" while others that got hand-checked somehow 
 > (?) by geniuses (you guys) would have the same numbers and work as 
 > defaults, but that seems kind of odd...
 > 

No. We validate every mode line the same way.


 > XF86Config and XFree86.0.log (revised slightly from previous post) are here:
 > http://l-i-e.com/xfree86/
 > 
 > It's still very speckly, though the lower dot-clocks seem to make it 
 > more "vertical streaky" rather than "speckly" at least until I move 
 > the mouse around...

12 MHz is indeed *very* low.

 > 
 > Just what sort of fine-grained numbers should one try in the binary 
 > search between a ModeLine that is "speckly" (dot clock too high?) and 
 > one that is rejected out of hand?  IE, if 15.00 is "illegal vertical 
 > timings" and 15.01 is speckly, is 15.005 an option or do I just give 
 > up at that point?

No, I don't think you have a realistic chance doing this at all.
There seems to be something else wrong which I cannot figure out
from here.

Egbert.
_______________________________________________
XFree86 mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xfree86

Reply via email to