Daniel Drake wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> User error.
>> Please replace user and press any key.
>>
>> # CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID is not set
>>
>> The user has *explicitly* disabled acquisition of EDID from the
>> firmware, so of course it doesn't probe for it.
>
> I'm not versed with all this EDID and resolution stuff, but shouldn't
> the resolution be detected correctly under all configurations?
Not if you actively disable detection!
Why would you want to be able to disable detection? Well, your BIOS
might be buggy.
> The original problem is that as of 2.6.20.11, the resolution is
> misdetected - it is wrong by 6 pixels. The same configuration with
> 2.6.20.10 works fine.
That is because 2.6.20.11 incorrectly disabled EDID detection when a
non-VESA mode was chosen as the initial mode. This is a bug.
> With the 2.6.20.10/2.6.20.11 configuration, the user did have
> CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID set. I'm not sure why he changed this for the -mm
> testing, but then again I don't understand why it should matter.
You're complaining that we didn't query EDID when you *explicitly* asked
us not to. This is not a bug!
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
