severity 613670 wishlist quit Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 01:43:15 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> Conrad Hughes wrote:
>>> [drm:edid_is_valid] *ERROR* Raw EDID: >>> <3>00 ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff >>> <3>ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff [...] >> I wonder if >> the change v2.6.35-rc1~18^2~2 (drm/edid: Allow non-fatal checksum >> errors in CEA blocks, 2010-05-25[1]) would help here. > > That seems unlikely, the error above suggests the EDID is pretty much > all ones in the main block, not just in CEA extension blocks. Thanks for a sanity check. I read the "raw_edid[0] != 0x02" test backwards (and should have spent the time to think about or look up what a CEA extension block is) --- sloppy. As you say, the EDID is completely bogus: all ones excent for the EDID header. The bad EDID lasts for at least 0.8 seconds, so the driver can't just wait for it to get replaced by a good one. So the question becomes, why is this KVM switch doing that, and can the user provide some information to override it somehow? I don't see any code to override the EDID or silence the messages, neither in the intel driver nor the general DRM code, but it would be easy to add as a private patch (see drivers/gpu/drm/drm_edid.c). Do you have any way of identifying this KVM switch to learn more about it (e.g., brand and model number)? Cheers, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
