Summary: | External Monitor shows 640x480 panning window, not actual desktop size | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | xorg | Reporter: | David Mackintosh <dave> | ||||||||||
Component: | Driver/rage128 | Assignee: | Xorg Project Team <xorg-team> | ||||||||||
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |||||||||||
Severity: | normal | ||||||||||||
Priority: | high | CC: | erik.andren | ||||||||||
Version: | 6.7.0 | ||||||||||||
Hardware: | x86 (IA32) | ||||||||||||
OS: | Linux (All) | ||||||||||||
URL: | http://xdroop.dhs.org/space/Linux/Dell+D600+External+Monitor | ||||||||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||||||||
i915 platform: | i915 features: | ||||||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
David Mackintosh
2004-12-08 11:32:09 UTC
I have this new Dell D600 laptop which I have installed FC2 on. It has a SXVGA+ (ie, 1400x1050) display. X will display at this resolution (at 24-bit depth) on the LCD display, no problem. However, when I plug the laptop into a docking station which has an Acer 77e 17" monitor attached to it, the Acer displays the 1400x1050 desktop, as viewed through a panning 640x480 window. Experimentation has shown that the presence or absence of the dock (ie just plugging the Acer straight into the back of the Dell) makes no difference. I know it is possible to have this monitor display 1400x1050x24 -- Windows does it. I've also driven this monitor at 1600x1280x24 when attached to a different linux system. I also know that it is possible to have this Linux display properly at this resolution on an external monitor -- I have a Sony G400 at the office which does it. I have gone through the FC2 System Settings -> Display applet and have explicitly defined my monitor as an AcerView 77e. I have confirmed in my /etc/X11/xorg.conf that there is an appropriate monitor defined: Section "Monitor" Identifier "Monitor0" VendorName "Monitor Vendor" ModelName "Acer 77e" HorizSync 30.0 - 72.0 VertRefresh 50.0 - 120.0 EndSection The presence and/or absence of this section doesn't appear to change anything. When I boot the laptop at the office, it is connected to the Sony G400 and it does the appropriate thing. At home, it still does not behave with the Acer. In the Xorg.0.log, I've noticed that when connected to the Sony, the log reports: (II) RADEON(0): Displays Detected: Monitor1--Type 2, Monitor2--Type 1 (II) RADEON(0): Monitor2 EDID data --------------------------- (II) RADEON(0): Manufacturer: SNY Model: 290 Serial#: 8011257 (II) RADEON(0): Year: 2000 Week: 25 (II) RADEON(0): EDID Version: 1.2 [...lots of monitor stuff trimmed...] (II) RADEON(0): End of Monitor2 EDID data -------------------- (II) RADEON(0): (II) RADEON(0): Primary Display == Type 2 (II) RADEON(0): Clone Display == Type 1 ...which tells me that it is detecting the Sony all by itself and making appropriate assumptions. Where as when it is connected ot the Acer, I see: (II) RADEON(0): Displays Detected: Monitor1--Type 2, Monitor2--Type 1 (II) RADEON(0): (II) RADEON(0): Primary Display == Type 2 (II) RADEON(0): Clone Display == Type 1 ...which tells me that either the Acer isn't detected at all, or it is detected improperly. However, I still don't know what to do about it. I'm starting to suspect that the config file is merely there for my amusement and xorg is trying to auto-detect things at startup rather than read the config file. What I can't find is an explanation as to why I'm getting this 640x480 on an external monitor which is clearly capable of displaying much more, nor an explanation of how to fix it. All pages on the web I've found suggest that it means that my monitor can't run the video mode I selected (known to be false) or that my video card can't run the video mode I selected (also known to be false). It has to be a configuration problem. Incidentally, a co-worker has the same problem, only he's started with FC2 and done an "upgrade" install to FC3. Created attachment 1494 [details]
my xorg.conf
Created attachment 1495 [details]
What happens when nothing is connected
Created attachment 1496 [details]
What happens when the Acer is connected
Created attachment 1497 [details]
What happens when the Sony is connected
the radeon driver defaults to driving each display with a separate crtc (called clone mdoe). if it can't find the DDC data for the attached monitor it defaults to 640x480@60Hz to avoid potentially damaging you monitor. You can either disable clone mode (in which case crtc1 will drive both outputs) or add the use the clonehsync and clonevrefresh options (to tell the driver the monitor's limits when it can't get DDC data). see that radeon man page for more about the options. not a bug for your coworker, in 6.8.x the options have changed a bit, see the radeon man page for more. (In reply to comment #6) > the radeon driver defaults to driving each display with a separate crtc (called > clone mdoe). if it can't find the DDC data for the attached monitor it defaults > to 640x480@60Hz to avoid potentially damaging you monitor. You can either > disable clone mode (in which case crtc1 will drive both outputs) or add the use > the clonehsync and clonevrefresh options (to tell the driver the monitor's > limits when it can't get DDC data). see that radeon man page for more about the > options. Good Day Alex. I am having a similar problem to the above, however my screen resolution appears to be stuck at 1024*768. I have tried using the CRT2HSync and CRT2VRefresh options to no avail. Would it be possible to re-open this bug for this? I shall provide you with my log files and configuration files. Thank you in advance. I have had the same trouble described here, initially, i.e. my radeon M9 displays at 640x480 when using an external ViewSonic PF795 monitor connected over a dock. I added Option "CRT2HSync" "30.0 - 82.0" Option "CRT2VRefresh" "50.0 - 90.0" to my xorg.config file, but that only partly solved the problem: The resolution seems now almost correct, but the screen is misaligned by about 200 pixels horizontally and 50 pixels vertically. Additionally, the truetype fonts look really aweful, which makes me think the grid used to rasterize the fonts doesn't quite match the real pixel grid, and thus the bad fonts could be another symptom of the same error. What's the status of this bug using a current version of xorg? Marking broken (status null/blank) bugs in xorg with no activity in a long time as fixed. Please reopen if you think it's necessary, but first do a search if a similar bug report is already filed and in a NEW/ASSIGNED state. These bugs do not currently show in most search results as they do not have any status. Sorry for this janitorial spam, you know where to send hate mails to when your inbox gets full of bugs you're subscribed to. |
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.