On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 17:02 +0800, Ma, Ling wrote: > >And yeah, I think frame height is the sensible representation for modes > >internally. Now we just need to figure out how to fix up EDID timings > >that are in field height, but that's a fight for another day. > > So your menas (If I was wrong, please correct me): we directly > duplicate interlaced mode from CEA table which contains original > height (like 1080i), then mode_valide function in driver will chose it > or not ?
Yes, the CEA mode table should give frame height (eg 1920x1080) not field height (1920x540). So the mode table as you have it is fine. As of commit bcafdfbe... in xserver, the driver's mode_valid() hook won't need to check for interlace; the server will filter all modes for it based on whether interlaceAllowed was set (and likewise for doublescan). Drivers that want to be compatible with pre-1.7 servers can still check in mode_valid() if they want, it's harmless, but it won't be necessary. - ajax
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ xorg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
