Livna nVidia problems...

Chris Jones jonesc at
Sun Jun 24 13:40:34 UTC 2007


Thanks for your feedback.

> Thanks.  There are a few problems here.  First the EDID violates the
> specification standard:
> (II) NVIDIA(0): First detailed timing not preferred mode in violation
> of standard!
> The the first detailed timing listed in the EDID should always be the
> preferred native mode.  Your CRT is not doing that.

Ah. Ok.

> You've commented out the entire Monitor section, so the driver is
> going back to internal defaults for hsync & vrefresh, which gives you:
> (II) NVIDIA(0): <default monitor>: Using default hsync range of 31.50-37.90
> kHz

Actually, after I first installed F7 on this box, which gave me the nv driver. 
The xorg.conf file was minimal and did not have a Monitor section at all. 
When I then installed the nvidia driver (via livna) a monitor section was not 
added. I had to add a section myself together with a better set of freq. 
values in order to get the higher resolutions running.

I thought, for this test I would go back to what I had before I fixed the 
problem, to show you the original error.

> However, the EDID for your display specifies that 1600x1200 needs an
> 85Hz refresh rate.  However, this means that you need a 107.1Khz
> hsync:
> (II) NVIDIA(0): #0: hsize: 1600  vsize 1200  refresh: 85  vid: 22953
> Since the internal defaults only go as high as 37.90, the mode fails
> to validate:
> (II) NVIDIA(0): Not using default mode "1600x1200" (hsync out of range)
> So basically, if you uncomment the Monitor section, and specify much
> broader ranges, you'll likely fix the problem.

Thanks. I had already figured out that the problem was the freq. ranges where 
too narrow when using the nvidia driver, and I had to suply them by hand. 
That works just fine. 

What I didn't know was why the nv driver was getting them and the nvidia 
driver did not. I'm still not really clear on this point. You say my monitor 
is not giving a correct EDID - Just for interest does this mean that the nv 
driver is better at 'working around' these problems - It seems to be getting 
them correctly ? Or is it just that the nvidia driver is stricter when it 
comes to the EDID standard and when it finds a problem defaults to safe 
default values ? Just wondering ...

cheers Chris 

More information about the fedora-list mailing list