> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Garrett [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 2010?10?12? 9:28
> To: Huang, FrankR
> Cc: Otavio Salvador; Adam Jackson; [email protected]; Geode Mailing
> List; Julien Cristau
> Subject: Re: [Xorg-driver-geode] xf86-video-geode: Changes to 'master'
> 
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 09:23:35AM +0800, Huang, FrankR wrote:
> 
> > The reason why valid modes are being pruned is due to the MODE_BAD
> > return in this function. In the following function
> > xf86PruneInvalidModes, the modes that is not MODE_OK will be deleted.
> > It is very clear. Just look at the code and you can get the answer. So
> > I don't know "introduces more bugs" means what? What bug exactly will
> > be introduced? If you take the example Ajax gave(1920x1440 160), we
> > can add code to filter out that mode in the mode_valid function.
> 
> What your patch does is:
> 
> if (something)
>       return MODE_OK
> 
> if (something_else)
>       return MODE_OK
> 
> if (something_misc)
>       return MODE_OK
> 
> return MODE_OK
> 
> This is clearly and obviously wrong. If you're always going to return
> MODE_OK, then what are the other checks for? The rational analysis is
> that they're the bits of code that are intended to determine whether a
> mode is ok, and if they don't succeed then the mode is bad. Your problem
> is that they're failing to pass for valid modes. Figure out why not and
> you'll know how to fix this bug properly.
Got the idea. But unfortunely, there is no obvious code for me to refer to pass 
for the valid mode in xorg.conf. I use DDD debug tool and does not find any 
difference between the mode probed by EDID and mode from xorg.conf. Do you know?
I think for ATI&&INTEL driver, there is no code to limit the mode from 
xorg.conf, so my opinion is just to return MODE_OK. As follow:
        xxx_mode_valid (){
                Return MODE_OK;
        }
Otavio, what's your opinion? Do you still think we need to add the above three 
MODE_OK??

> 
> --
> Matthew Garrett | [email protected]


_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel

Reply via email to