| 1 |
Richard Fish wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/9/05, fire-eyes <sgtphou@×××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>Hell, I am running into some very irritating problems when trying to use |
| 5 |
>>newer nvidia drivers. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>Instead of covering the whole story and info here, I have placed it into |
| 8 |
>>this text file. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>>I sure would appreciate some input! |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Well, I don't use the nvidia driver, so I'm certainly no expert here, but: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> (WW) NVIDIA(0): Not using mode "896x672" (height 1344 is larger than |
| 16 |
> (WW) NVIDIA(0): EDID-specified maximum 1200) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> and: |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Section "Device" |
| 21 |
> <snip> |
| 22 |
> Option "UseEdidFreqs" "on" |
| 23 |
> # Option "UseEdidFreqs" "off" |
| 24 |
> # Option "IgnoreEDID" "1" |
| 25 |
> # Option "UseEdidDpi" "DFP-0" |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> What happens if you play with these EDID options? Particularly, the |
| 28 |
> "UseEdidFreqs" looks like a likely candiate to be disabled. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> -Richard |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I have messed with them (hence the comments), no change. Those EDID |
| 35 |
maxes are surely bogus, I have run 2048x1536 (real, not virtual) on this |
| 36 |
before no problems, within spec. Only with the newer driver does it |
| 37 |
complain. Even if i tell it to ignore EDID. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Thank you for the reply :) |
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives