Bug 23138

Summary: [945GM] xrandr won't resize to > 2048 with virtual size > 2048
Product: xorg Reporter: Rob Mc <rmcauley>
Component: Driver/intelAssignee: Gordon Jin <gordon.jin>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED QA Contact: Xorg Project Team <xorg-team>
Severity: normal    
Priority: medium Keywords: NEEDINFO
Version: unspecified   
Hardware: x86 (IA32)   
OS: Linux (All)   
Whiteboard:
i915 platform: i915 features:
Attachments:
Description Flags
X.org Log
none
x.org conf used none

Description Rob Mc 2009-08-04 13:01:29 UTC
Created attachment 28346 [details]
X.org Log

Chipset: 945GM
Arch: Linux distorted 2.6.31-rc5-rem2 #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Aug 4 14:50:16 EDT 2009 i686 GNU/Linux
xf86-video-intel: 2.8 git 2009-08-04 (xorg-edgers)
xserver: 1.6.3 Ubuntu Jaunty stock
mesa: not applicable
libdrm: 2.4.12 git 2009-08-04 (xorg-edgers)
Kernel Version: 2.6.31-rc5 by Ubuntu Kernel Team, with latest intel-drm-next patches as of this posting
Linux Distro: Jaunty
Machine: Thinkpad X60s
Display: LVDS 1024x768 with VGA 1280x1024

Reproduce:

xrandr --output VGA  --auto --mode 1280x1024 --rate 75
xrandr --output LVDS --mode 1024x768 --right-of VGA

Expected:

Dual monitor output.

Result:

xrandr: screen cannot be larger than 2048x2048 (desired size 2304x1024)

My x.org config has:

        SubSection "Display"
                Virtual 2304 1024
        EndSubsection

.. in its Screen config, and that's all there is to my x.org. (no other directives)

Attached is my X.org log after trying to enable dual monitors, and then turning my LVDS off.
Comment 1 Rob Mc 2009-08-04 13:02:14 UTC
Created attachment 28348 [details]
x.org conf used
Comment 2 Gordon Jin 2009-08-04 19:02:31 UTC
I expect frame buffer should be 4096x4096, even without Virtual setting in xorg.conf.

So if you don't set Virtual in xorg.conf, what does xrandr output?
Then can you do "xrandr --output LVDS --right-of VGA"?
Comment 3 Rob Mc 2009-08-05 07:30:13 UTC
Completely removing my xorg.conf results in the same problem: 2048 screen size limit.

I'm beginning to suspect I may be patching my kernel incorrectly - I checked out intel-drm-next, and copied drivers/gpu/drm to my own kernel source.  The 4096 framebuffer patch is definitely in the code, but I must be doing something wrong if this isn't working.  (I'm patching so I can use Ubuntu's kernel, since their tools make things easy from there on)
Comment 4 Rob Mc 2009-08-05 08:58:51 UTC
From dmesg:

[   12.012471] [drm] Initialized drm 1.1.0 20060810
[   12.036275] [drm] Initialized i915 1.6.0 20080730 for 0000:00:02.0 on minor 0

So I believe I am patching correctly.  If you'd like full dmesg or any other debug let me know what I can do.
Comment 5 Gordon Jin 2009-08-05 18:07:56 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> Completely removing my xorg.conf results in the same problem: 2048 screen size
> limit.
> 
> I'm beginning to suspect I may be patching my kernel incorrectly - I checked
> out intel-drm-next, and copied drivers/gpu/drm to my own kernel source.  The
> 4096 framebuffer patch is definitely in the code, but I must be doing something
> wrong if this isn't working.  (I'm patching so I can use Ubuntu's kernel, since
> their tools make things easy from there on)

Copying drivers/gpu/drm may not be a good way. Could you directly try drm-intel-next to verify the fix, or just manually apply Keith's patch (http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/anholt/drm-intel.git;a=commitdiff;h=5e4d6fa72619aeea271d2ad704757717b06e291a;hp=8a90523639f49dc4b4fa7ae47bb9c8ed73ea8577) to your Ubuntu kernel?
Comment 6 Rob Mc 2009-08-05 21:23:39 UTC
> Copying drivers/gpu/drm may not be a good way. Could you directly try
> drm-intel-next to verify the fix, or just manually apply Keith's patch
> (http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/anholt/drm-intel.git;a=commitdiff;h=5e4d6fa72619aeea271d2ad704757717b06e291a;hp=8a90523639f49dc4b4fa7ae47bb9c8ed73ea8577)
> to your Ubuntu kernel?
> 

Done and done - I still have a maximum screen size of 2048x2048 according to xrandr when I don't have an xorg.conf.  I can test with dual monitors again in the morning.
Comment 7 Rob Mc 2009-08-05 22:43:41 UTC
A-ha, found it.  4096 framebuffer sizes require kernel mode setting!  I will try again tomorrow to run dual monitors, however earlier experiments with KMS and dual monitors ended in failure for me.  (if this is still the case I will comment in here, resolve the bug, and open a new one)
Comment 8 Rob Mc 2009-08-06 07:48:17 UTC
Everything is working fine now.  I'll leave it up to you to decide whether to resolve the bug or not. (e.g. if user mode setting should have 4096 framebuffer support)
Comment 9 Gordon Jin 2009-08-06 18:29:10 UTC
Good to know it's working for you now. So I'm closing this. I don't think we'll support that for UMS.

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.