From: <ahe...@ar...> - 2007-09-11 00:44:29
|
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:20:12AM +0200, ahe...@ar... wrote: > On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 03:46:29PM +0200, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > I don't like those tunables. First we should get a look at what values > > we obtain from the BIOS. Could be something with the parsing of ATOM > > BIOS. In any case, we might be able to detect we got wrong values or use > > subsystem vendor/device ID to blacklist. <snip> > "nopllcalc" results in a console 80x25 but forcing pll calculation gives > the expected result. > > BTW, I am a little surprised that the display doesn't blank without > my patch as it used to in the past ... > > Oops, PCI ID 0x5975 was already added with commit > b5f2f4d1a6d7efde39cfb5e1d034981c69f2214c > > I guess I have to repeat some testing with both the older commit and my patch(es) > to sort out what is really needed to support my RS482/0x5975. Done that. And meanwhile I found out that force_measure_pll gives the same results like the new force_pll_calc knob. Hence that new tunable is really not needed. By blacklisting you meant to add a workaround to reinit the card if subsystem vendor/devID matches my combination of Acer Aspire+Radeon, right? Then I wouldn't have to add the force_measure_pll option on boot to get the optimal resolution ... Do we need a second Acer Aspire system that's not correctly working to justify a blacklisting? Well, and how should the reinit function look like? Thanks and Regards, Andreas |