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.
Created attachment 28348 [details] x.org conf used
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"?
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)
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.
(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?
> 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.
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)
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)
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.