On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
> In all three cases the end result is "no EDID", but regardless of
> that, the correct action is basically _never_ to say "ok, I'll just
> assume that the display is on connector XYZ regardless of what the
> state of the graphics chip is".
Yeah, that's normal. Most builtin panels don't have EDIDs. Failures
on attached monitors are potentially more serious.
> > so yes I think do better at failing is what is needed, its still
> > failing but its more user friendly fail.
>
> Yes. If something fails ("oops, I can't seem EDID for any
> connector"), I wish KMS would fail way better than just default to
> some crazy setup. The failure mode should be to at least drive
> whatever the BIOS enabled.
Right, we need to improve our detection heuristics. We've recently
added some to catch non-existent LVDS displays, but currently don't
have any for VGA. Using the current configuration as a guide is a
reasonable addition...
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
