Livna nVidia problems...

[Lonni J Friedman]

On 6/24/07, Chris Jones <jonesc at hep.phy.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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 ...

The nvidia driver is stricter in its enforcement of a valid EDID.