Mailinglist Archive: radeonhd (529 mails)

[Coleman Kane <cokane@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 04:18:09PM -0500, Coleman Kane wrote:
>   
> > Kirill Belokurov wrote:
> >     
> > > On Friday 30 November 2007, Matthias Hopf wrote:
> > >   
> > > Unfortunately, with "noRandr" it is broken even worser: the Xorg simply 
> > > doesn't start at all:
> > >
> > > (EE) RADEONHD(0): No valid modes found
> > > (EE) Screen(s) found, but none have a usable configuration.
> > >
> > > apparently, there is some issue with rejected panel modes:
> > > (II) RADEONHD(0): Rejected mode "1440x900" (1440x900:88.8Mhz): mode clock 
> > > too 
> > > high
> > >
> > > I am attaching the Xorg log for this case.
> > >
> > > Regards, Kirill
> > >   
> > >       
> > It looks like the mode that your system tries to set up requires 88.8MHz
> > display bandwidth, however the panel seems to report that it's max is
> > 88MHz (interpreted as 88.0MHz I assume) meaning that your monitor is
> > telling X that the mode that it gave to X is out-of-range. It looks like
> > a truncation problem to me... I wonder where this is occurring.
> >     
>
> Nope.
>
> This is because modevalidation now tries to find a single common mode 
> on both outputs, and thus both monitors.
>
> The native mode of the first has too high a dotclock for the external 
> monitor.
>
> So this is not the issue here.
>   
Could they use a custom ModeLine with a proper dotclock with that panel
then?
> About validating an 88750kHz mode against an 88000kHz monitor (the 
> panel): this is no problem as there is a 1% tolerance on this value:
>
> 88750kHz < 88880kHz
>
> Luc Verhaegen.
> SUSE/Novell X Driver Developer.
>   
So... due to the tolerance value of 1%, the above combination should or
should not be working?

--
Coleman Kane

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: radeonhd+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: radeonhd+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx