Intel 2.0.0 driver not seeing laptop screen resolutions properly

[Greg KH]

On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:52:10PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 15:30 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:52:19AM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 18:17 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > So, I upgraded to 2.0.0 a few weeks ago, and it worked just fine,
> > > > without rebooting my laptop (quit X, restarted, and it was great).  The
> > > > same resolution worked (1280x768) both with, and without any xorg.conf
> > > > file present.
> > > > 
> > > > Then I rebooted to use a newer kernel, and I no longer can use 1280x768
> > > > anymore, the screen only runs at 1024x768, with a black band on the
> > > > right side where the unused pixels are (things aren't stretched to the
> > > > whole screen, like they had been in the past when switching to this
> > > > resolution.)
> > > > 
> > > > Attached below is the log file, I don't seem to see any mention of the
> > > > 1280x768 resolution in it at all.  I've also attached my xorg.conf file,
> > > > just in case I'm doing something really stupid there too.
> > > > 
> > > > I can try the git version of the intel driver, but it didn't look like
> > > > anything had changed in there since the 2.0.0 release that would help
> > > > this out.
> > > > 
> > > > My hardware for this laptop is:
> > > > 00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile 915GM/GMS/910GML Express Graphics Controller (rev 04)
> > > > 
> > > > Anyone have any ideas?
> > > 
> > > Can you put Option "ModeDebug" "YES" in your Driver section and send a
> > > new log?
> > 
> > Sure, attached is the diff between the two logs without and with debug
> > enabled, and the whole new log file itself.
> > 
> > It looks like it sees the bios setting for the proper panel size, but
> > that might just be due to me still running the 915resolution program at
> > boot time, which used to be required under the old driver to get this
> > screen size working.
> > 
> > I have disabled 915resolution one time, and no difference in result, but
> > the log files might be different then, do you want me to try that to see
> > that log difference too?
> 
> So, in your BIOS-initialized console, you've got a black band on the
> right side with a full screen of text, correct?  It looks like your BIOS
> was too clever to use the panel fitter, and instead decided to achieve
> its goals by taking the 1280x768 panel mode and chopping it down to just
> 1024x768 active.  Kind of.
> 
> Here's a proposed hack to detect your situation and plug in better
> values for the detected panel timings.  If it works, I'll add it.  Note
> that in your case the BIOS gets the right answer (it looks like).
> However, since the BIOS sometimes likes to disappear on us, it's
> probably better to have this hack in place.

Sweet, it works!

Funny thing is, xrandr doesn't seem to see the new mode listed:

$ ./xrandr --prop
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1280 x 768, maximum 1280 x 1280
VGA disconnected (normal left inverted right)
LVDS connected 1280x768+0+0 (normal left inverted right) 0mm x 0mm
        BACKLIGHT: 31250 (0x00007a12) range:  (0,31250)
   1024x768       59.8*+   85.0     75.0     70.1     60.0  
   1152x768       54.8  
   832x624        74.6  
   800x600        85.1     72.2     75.0     60.3     56.2  
   640x480        85.0     72.8     75.0     59.9  
   720x400        85.0  
   640x400        85.1  
   640x350        85.1  
TV disconnected (normal left inverted right)
        BOTTOM: 37 (0x00000025) range:  (0,100)
        RIGHT: 46 (0x0000002e) range:  (0,100)
        TOP: 36 (0x00000024) range:  (0,100)
        LEFT: 54 (0x00000036) range:  (0,100)
        TV_FORMAT: NTSC-M
                supported: NTSC-M       NTSC-443     NTSC-J       PAL-M       
                           PAL-N        PAL          480p at 59.94Hz 480p at 60Hz   
                           576p         720p at 60Hz    720p at 59.94Hz 720p at 50Hz   
                           1080i at 50Hz   1080i at 60Hz   1080i at 59.94H


If there's anything else I can do to test this, please let me know.

thanks,

greg k-h