[9200SE] Incorrect default resolution with CRT over VGA

[ethana2]

I have two CRT monitors with a resolution of 1280x1024 at 60fps. When I use the radeon driver for my Radeon 9200SE PCI, the resolution defaults to some widescreen res; although i still get graphical output, it isn't truly usable with 1/4 the screen chopped off..

I don't know if the monitors have false hardware identification or what, but I need them to be 1280x1024.. and i'm not sure, but it looks like radeon is ignoring my mode settings in xorg.conf.

Monitors: Cybervision C92, Gateway VX900.

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

This is on Ubuntu Hardy alpha4 with default graphical settings-- forgot to say that. Very important.

[Bryce Harrington (bryce)]

I don't know if this will fix this specific issue, but I've backported a bunch of high importance patches that upstream recommended, that fix problems sort of like this one, so I think it would be worth the time to test. Please try this .deb and report what you find:

http://people.ubuntu.com/~bryce/Testing/ati/

If we can determine that the patches in this deb fix this bug, they may be candidates for backporting to Hardy.

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

Again, I'm sorry, but I'm not in a position to test anything...

[Brian Murray (brian-murray)]

Thanks for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. In the development cycle for Intrepid there have been some vast improvements in the open source ati video driver and we could use your help testing them. Could you please download the latest Alpha CD image of Intrepid and test this particular bug just using the Live CD? You can find the latest image at http://www.ubuntu.com/testing . Your testing can help make Ubuntu and the open source ati driver even better! Thanks in advance.

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

I don't have context for this email, but I'm torrenting 8.10 alpha 4
now and I do have an ati card installed in my desktop currently.

What is it you want me to do exactly?

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

Ah wait, sorry.. I've got the bug number, I'll figure it out.

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

Ah, okay, I see. Well, I don't have those two monitors now, I have a MAG Innovision, but the specs should be about the same. Still got the ati card, /plus/ a new ubuntu inspiron that seems to have maybe been fixed this third time sending it in to dell..

I'll be glad to try it out and report any bugs I find :)

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

8.10a4 first run:

My keyboard layout was not in the CD keymap options so I had to set it in gnome's keyboard thingy after booting.
After changing it, it seemed to work fine almost, but I had to run xset r 66 to actually make it work correctly.
www.colemak.com

It detected my monitor by name, which was cool
MAG Innovision 17"

gpu: visiontek radeon 9200se pci 128MB
The default res wasn't the native resolution of 1280x1024 @60Hz, but it looked pretty close...
I think it used 1280x960..
I changed it to 1280x1024, works fine.

metacity --replace &
glxgears
~2500 frames in 5.0 seconds = 499.9xx FPS consistently

What else would you like me to test? 3d performance and stability in nexuiz or tremulous, perhaps?

[Brian Murray (brian-murray)]

Could you please add the full output of 'sudo ddcprobe' and 'xrandr', before changing the settings, so we can try and determine why the correct resolution was not chosen for your monitor?

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

Ah, okay.

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo ddcprobe
vbe: VESA 2.0 detected.
oem: ATI RADEON 9200
memory: 131072kb
mode: 800x600x16
mode: 1024x768x16
mode: 320x200x32k
mode: 320x200x64k
mode: 320x200x16m
mode: 1600x1200x256
mode: 640x400x256
mode: 640x480x256
mode: 640x480x32k
mode: 640x480x64k
mode: 640x480x16m
mode: 1600x1200x32k
mode: 800x600x256
mode: 800x600x32k
mode: 800x600x64k
mode: 800x600x16m
mode: 1600x1200x64k
mode: 1024x768x256
mode: 1024x768x32k
mode: 1024x768x64k
mode: 1024x768x16m
mode: 1280x1024x256
mode: 1280x1024x32k
mode: 1280x1024x64k
mode: 1280x1024x16m
mode: 132x25 (text)
mode: 132x43 (text)
edid:
edid: 1 3
id: 0302
eisa: MAG0302
serial: f900992f
manufacture: 41 2004
input: sync on green, analog signal.
screensize: 32 24
gamma: 1.270000
dpms: RGB, active off, suspend, standby
timing: 720x400@70 Hz (VGA 640x400, IBM)
timing: 640x480@75 Hz (VESA)
timing: 800x600@60 Hz (VESA)
timing: 800x600@75 Hz (VESA)
timing: 1024x768@87 Hz Interlaced (8514A)
timing: 1024x768@75 Hz (VESA)
ctiming: 640x480@85
ctiming: 800x600@85
ctiming: 800x600@100
ctiming: 1024x768@85
ctiming: 1280x1024@60
dtiming: 640x480@100
dtiming: 800x600@85
monitorrange: 30-70, 50-160
monitorserial: FAIU4A039215
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ xrandr
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1280 x 960, maximum 1600 x 1200
VGA-0 connected 1280x960+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y
axis) 310mm x 230mm
   1600x1024 60.2
   1280x1024 60.0 60.0
   1440x900 59.9
   1280x960 60.0*
   1360x768 59.8
   1152x864 75.0 75.0 70.0 60.0
   1024x768 85.0 85.0 75.1 75.0 70.1 60.0
   832x624 74.6
   800x600 100.0 85.0 85.1 85.1 72.2 75.0
 60.3 56.2
   640x480 100.0 85.0 85.0 72.8 75.0 60.0 59.9
   720x400 85.0 70.1
   640x400 85.1
   640x350 85.1
DVI-0 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
S-video disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$

[Bryce Harrington (bryce)]

Great, thanks, could you also attach your /var/log/Xorg.0.log, so we can compare the monitor's EDID info against the resolutions you listed and see why it didn't pick something better.

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

/var/log/Xorg.0.log attached.

[Bryce Harrington (bryce)]

Forwarding this bug from a Ubuntu user:
https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xserver-xorg-video-ati/+bug/188792

EDID and ddcprobe show that resolution 1280x1024 is available from the monitor, but 1280x960 is selected instead:

ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo ddcprobe
vbe: VESA 2.0 detected.
oem: ATI RADEON 9200
memory: 131072kb
mode: 800x600x16
mode: 1024x768x16
mode: 320x200x32k
mode: 320x200x64k
mode: 320x200x16m
mode: 1600x1200x256
mode: 640x400x256
mode: 640x480x256
mode: 640x480x32k
mode: 640x480x64k
mode: 640x480x16m
mode: 1600x1200x32k
mode: 800x600x256
mode: 800x600x32k
mode: 800x600x64k
mode: 800x600x16m
mode: 1600x1200x64k
mode: 1024x768x256
mode: 1024x768x32k
mode: 1024x768x64k
mode: 1024x768x16m
mode: 1280x1024x256
mode: 1280x1024x32k
mode: 1280x1024x64k
mode: 1280x1024x16m
mode: 132x25 (text)
mode: 132x43 (text)
edid:
edid: 1 3
id: 0302
eisa: MAG0302
serial: f900992f
manufacture: 41 2004
input: sync on green, analog signal.
screensize: 32 24
gamma: 1.270000
dpms: RGB, active off, suspend, standby
timing: 720x400@70 Hz (VGA 640x400, IBM)
timing: 640x480@75 Hz (VESA)
timing: 800x600@60 Hz (VESA)
timing: 800x600@75 Hz (VESA)
timing: 1024x768@87 Hz Interlaced (8514A)
timing: 1024x768@75 Hz (VESA)
ctiming: 640x480@85
ctiming: 800x600@85
ctiming: 800x600@100
ctiming: 1024x768@85
ctiming: 1280x1024@60
dtiming: 640x480@100
dtiming: 800x600@85
monitorrange: 30-70, 50-160
monitorserial: FAIU4A039215

ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ xrandr
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1280 x 960, maximum 1600 x 1200
VGA-0 connected 1280x960+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y
axis) 310mm x 230mm
   1600x1024 60.2
   1280x1024 60.0 60.0
   1440x900 59.9
   1280x960 60.0*
   1360x768 59.8
   1152x864 75.0 75.0 70.0 60.0
   1024x768 85.0 85.0 75.1 75.0 70.1 60.0
   832x624 74.6
   800x600 100.0 85.0 85.1 85.1 72.2 75.0
 60.3 56.2
   640x480 100.0 85.0 85.0 72.8 75.0 60.0 59.9
   720x400 85.0 70.1
   640x400 85.1
   640x350 85.1
DVI-0 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
S-video disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)

(II) RADEON(0): EDID vendor "MAG", prod id 770
(II) RADEON(0): Using hsync ranges from config file
(II) RADEON(0): Using vrefresh ranges from config file
(II) RADEON(0): Printing DDC gathered Modelines:
(II) RADEON(0): Modeline "640x480"x0.0 40.50 640 656 720 800 480 481 484 506 -hsync -vsync (50.6 kHz)
(II) RADEON(0): Modeline "800x600"x0.0 56.25 800 832 896 1048 600 601 604 631 +hsync +vsync (53.7 kHz)
(II) RADEON(0): Modeline "800x600"x0.0 40.00 800 840 968 1056 600 601 605 628 +hsync +vsync (37.9 kHz)
(II) RADEON(0): Modeline "640x480"x0.0 25.20 640 656 752 800 480 490 492 525 -hsync -vsync (31.5 kHz)
(II) RADEON(0): Modeline "720x400"x0.0 28.32 720 738 846 900 400 412 414 449 -hsync +vsync (31.5 kHz)
(II) RADEON(0): Modeline "1024x768"x0.0 78.80 1024 1040 1136 1312 768 769 772 800 +hsync +vsync (60.1 kHz)
(II) RADEON(0): Modeline "1024x768"x0.0 65.00 1024 1048 1184 1344 768 771 777 806 -hsync -vsync (48.4 kHz)
(II) RADEON(0): Modeline "800x600"x0.0 49.50 800 816 896 1056 600 601 604 625 +hsync +vsync (46.9 kHz)
(II) RADEON(0): Modeline "640x480"x85.0 35.71 640 672 736 832 ...

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

I'm the Ubuntu user who reported this bug, just let me know what you need me to do.

[Bryce Harrington (bryce)]

Here's where it's going off and selecting 1280x960:

(II) RADEON(0): Using fuzzy aspect match for initial modes
(II) RADEON(0): Output VGA-0 using initial mode 1280x960

[Bryce Harrington (bryce)]

Hi ethana2,

I've forwarded your bug upstream. Can you please subscribe to this bug there, in case they need additional info or have something for you to test? Thanks ahead of time:

  https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17255

[Julien Cristau (jcristau)]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 19:15:34 -0700, <email address hidden> wrote:

> (II) RADEON(0): Using hsync ranges from config file
> (II) RADEON(0): Using vrefresh ranges from config file

that might be a problem. what happens if the log file doesn't give any
hsync/vrefresh ranges?

Cheers,
Julien

[agd5f (agd5f)]

You monitor does not specify a preferred mode so the server ends up picking one. Also as Julien noted the driver is using the sync ranges from the monitor section of your config which may influence that decision. 1280x960 is a valid mode based on the sync ranges provided and it's actually 4:3 whereas 1280x1024 is not. I suppose it comes down to what mode do you pick as a default on an analog monitor which does not specify a preferred mode. You can use the preferred mode option in your monitor section to hardcode your preferred mode if you don't like what the xserver picks.

As to the display sizes, both come from the monitor via the EDID:
- Max image size supported by the monitor:
(II) RADEON(0): Max Image Size [cm]: horiz.: 32 vert.: 24
- The extended timings can individually specify an image sizes:
(II) RADEON(0): clock: 40.5 MHz Image Size: 310 x 230 mm
(II) RADEON(0): clock: 56.2 MHz Image Size: 310 x 230 mm

[Julien Cristau (jcristau)]

> --- Comment #2 from Julien Cristau <email address hidden> 2008-08-22 05:19:46 PST ---
> what happens if the log file doesn't give any hsync/vrefresh ranges?
>
bah. i obviously meant *config* file there...

[Bryce Harrington (bryce)]

The user isn't specifying anything in their xorg.conf; it's just a stock empty config file (see below). Here's an updated description of the problem:

"I measured my screen. The viewing area is 32cm wide and like 25 and a
half cm tall.
This 1280x960 stetches everything vertically and leaves two big black
strips up the side of the screen. You'd think it would do the
opposite.."

So it sounds like the driver (or server) is picking an inappropriate modeline.

# xorg.conf (X.Org X Window System server configuration file)
#
# This file was generated by dexconf, the Debian X Configuration tool, using
# values from the debconf database.
#
# Edit this file with caution, and see the xorg.conf manual page.
# (Type "man xorg.conf" at the shell prompt.)
#
# This file is automatically updated on xserver-xorg package upgrades *only*
# if it has not been modified since the last upgrade of the xserver-xorg
# package.
#
# If you have edited this file but would like it to be automatically updated
# again, run the following command:
# sudo dpkg-reconfigure -phigh xserver-xorg

Section "InputDevice"
 Identifier "Generic Keyboard"
 Driver "kbd"
 Option "XkbRules" "xorg"
 Option "XkbModel" "pc105"
 Option "XkbLayout" "us"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
 Identifier "Configured Mouse"
 Driver "mouse"
 Option "CorePointer"
EndSection

Section "Device"
 Identifier "Configured Video Device"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
 Identifier "Configured Monitor"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
 Identifier "Default Screen"
 Monitor "Configured Monitor"
 Device "Configured Video Device"
EndSection

Section "ServerLayout"
 Identifier "Default Layout"
 Screen "Default Screen"
EndSection

[Bryce Harrington (bryce)]

ethana2, could you also post your /etc/X11/xorg.conf? Maybe we can suggest some better configuration settings.

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

Ok, I'll boot the LiveCD again and try to get that for you.

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

Here you go.

I measured my screen. The viewing area is 32cm wide and like 25 and a
half cm tall.
This 1280x960 stetches everything vertically and leaves two big black
strips up the side of the screen. You'd think it would do the
opposite..

In any case, upstream's comments on aspect ratios and whatnot sound
like some kind of random excuse to not fix this bug :(
It's a 5:4 screen, period.

[agd5f (agd5f)]

The server is injecting that mode. It's technically valid based on the sync ranges reported by the monitor. I guess ideally the server should not inject any modelines if the output has an EDID.

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

A circle is a circle on the monitor when it's 1280x1024, with the
other one it's kinda stretched.
Also, 1280x1024 is simply more information being sent to the screen.
Why on earth would I want to use a resolution /less/ than my screen
supports?
There's people out there with 2560x1600 LCD's, and I have this
pathetic CRT, the least I can do is use it to its fullest potential.

"You can use the preferred mode option in your monitor section to
hardcode your preferred mode if you don't like what the xserver
picks."
Sometimes a problem is so complicated that it comes down to personal
preference. This is not one of those times.
1280x1024 is the -correct- resolution for my setup.

"1280x960 is a valid mode based on the sync ranges provided and it's
actually 4:3 whereas 1280x1024 is not"
My physical hardware is 5:4 aspect ratio, not 4:3. If you have
something against 5:4, please take it up with the manufacturers, not
the end users.

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

Julien, what is it you want me to do exactly? I have Ubuntu 8.10
alpha4 on a LiveCD..

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

"It's technically valid based on the sync ranges reported by the monitor."

I thought the only thing worse than display EDID accuracy was ACPI..

[agd5f (agd5f)]

(In reply to comment #7)
> A circle is a circle on the monitor when it's 1280x1024, with the
> other one it's kinda stretched.
> Also, 1280x1024 is simply more information being sent to the screen.
> Why on earth would I want to use a resolution /less/ than my screen
> supports?
> There's people out there with 2560x1600 LCD's, and I have this
> pathetic CRT, the least I can do is use it to its fullest potential.
>

You can. Just add the preferred mode to your config and be done with it. or change it on the fly with xrandr:
xrandr --output VGA-0 --mode 1280x1024

> "You can use the preferred mode option in your monitor section to
> hardcode your preferred mode if you don't like what the xserver
> picks."
> Sometimes a problem is so complicated that it comes down to personal
> preference. This is not one of those times.
> 1280x1024 is the -correct- resolution for my setup.

How is this not one of those times? You monitor is a CRT and does not list a preferred mode, so it comes down to what mode should be picked. Most people would say 1280x1024@60hz is pretty rough on the eyes. I would argue that based on your monitor's EDID, 1024x768@85hz would be the preferred mode. 1280x960 happens to be right in the middle. Some people like 800x600. That's why there is a preferred mode option.

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

Naturally if I had it installed instead of just booting the livecd 75
times, I wouldn't mind such a simple modification...
(I don't like trusting my life to a partitioner in an alpha OS)

"Most people would say 1280x1024@60hz is pretty rough on the eyes. I
would argue that based on your monitor's EDID, 1024x768@85hz would be
the preferred mode. 1280x960 happens to be right in the middle. Some
people like 800x600. That's why there is a preferred mode option."

'Oh gee, they didn't sell pathetic enough displays at Wal-Mart, looks
like I'll have to get this ok one and set it down to youtube
resolution.'
I'll take your word that those people exist, I've never met one. ..I
can see that having a GUI that's not zoomable can really be a pain
with any kind of decent display, but .svg icons should do a lot to
help us out there.

My only argument now is that more people will /prefer/ 1280x1024 on
this display than won't, and because of that, it should be the default
resolution..

Sorry for getting snappy, I hear people who hold things in become mass
murderers. I'm a quiet, friendly guy who always keeps to himself but
lends a helping hand when people need it, so I figure the risk factors
are already stacked against me.

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

/me shakes fist at vendors who use incomplete and/or erroneous EDID

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

Quick addendum:
"I would argue that based on your monitor's EDID, 1024x768@85hz would
be the preferred mode."
If I had a GPU that didn't completely suck, I would most certainly
want to use that mode for OpenGL applications. 85 FPS would be
awesome.
As it stands, Firefox gains a lot more from those extra pixels than it
does from being painted at 85 Hz.
Also, it's trivial for games to change the screen mode, they do it all
the time, I may even have tremulous set to 1024x768@85Hz.

Let's forget all this for a second and say that I want the 1280x960 resolution.
...you know, if it didn't stretch everything insanely, I probably
wouldn't have even noticed in the first placed, and also, even if I
had, probably not have cared that much.

If this bug is fixed only by making 1280x960 work properly by default,
I'll be content.

And just as a final note, all politics and technical arguments aside,
you guys rock, your work is amazing, I'm very, very grateful for all
the time you spend on these drivers and I think many other people are
too. Don't let the minutiae get you down.

[Sroland-vmware (sroland-vmware)]

(In reply to comment #7)
> "1280x960 is a valid mode based on the sync ranges provided and it's
> actually 4:3 whereas 1280x1024 is not"
> My physical hardware is 5:4 aspect ratio, not 4:3. If you have
> something against 5:4, please take it up with the manufacturers, not
> the end users.
Sure about that? I've never seen a CRT which has a 5:4 aspect ratio. Maybe they exist as some specialty items but certainly usual (non-widescreen) crts are all 4:3.
And I'd have to agree default mode on CRTs should be any mode which uses more than 60Hz. Maybe it doesn't bother you, but I know a lot of people (me included...) which will get killed by the annoying flicker within minutes :-).

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

I think I posted this on the bug in Ubuntu, not freedesktop.org, but I
measured my screen viewing area with a ruler, and it is exactly 5:4.

[James H. Cloos Jr. (cloos-jhcloos)]

> I’ve never seen a CRT which has a 5:4 aspect ratio.

There were several on the market back when 1280x1024 was a top-notch resolution.

At that time, only the Mac-specific monitors in that pixel-class were
designed for 1280x960. Everyone else went for a 5x4 1280x1024.

(I once drove one such monitor at 1168x930 — 1160x928 with a few extra
pixels horizontally because the card required a width divisible by 16
and a couple of extra lines just because I could — to get a better-than-
60 Hz refresh rate.)

[agd5f (agd5f)]

Update your monitor and screen sections like so:

Section "Monitor"
        Identifier "VGA-0"
        Option "DPMS"
        Modeline "1280x1024_60.00" 108.88 1280 1360 1496 1712 1024 1025 1028 1060 -hsync +vsync
        Option "PreferredMode" "1280x1024_60.00"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
        Identifier "Default Screen"
        Monitor "VGA-0"
        Device "Configured Video Device"
EndSection

That will select 1280x1024 @ 60hz as your default mode.

[Sroland-vmware (sroland-vmware)]

(In reply to comment #16)
> > I’ve never seen a CRT which has a 5:4 aspect ratio.
>
> There were several on the market back when 1280x1024 was a top-notch
> resolution.
>
> At that time, only the Mac-specific monitors in that pixel-class were
> designed for 1280x960. Everyone else went for a 5x4 1280x1024.
Well everybody used 1280x1024, but I'm not too sure that the monitors were really 5:4. I've got a 19" CRT here for instance which clearly is 4:3, and there were lots of similar monitors around that time. And especially the cheaper ones, while they could run 1600x1200, it was unusable due to fuzziness and restriction to 60Hz, so everybody just used 1280x1024 on them. But you may be right some might indeed have been 5:4. Anyway, even if the monitor in question here really is 5:4 physically, there's nothing in the edid data which would indicate this - in fact edid just shows it's 4:3. So there's absolutely nothing the driver could do to figure out it should indeed chose a 5:4 resolution by default.

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

> Well everybody used 1280x1024, but I'm not too sure that the monitors were
> really 5:4. I've got a 19" CRT here for instance which clearly is 4:3, and
> there were lots of similar monitors around that time. And especially the
> cheaper ones, while they could run 1600x1200, it was unusable due to fuzziness
> and restriction to 60Hz, so everybody just used 1280x1024 on them. But you may
> be right some might indeed have been 5:4.
Yes, as I said, I measured it.

>Anyway, even if the monitor in
> question here really is 5:4 physically, there's nothing in the edid data which
> would indicate this - in fact edid just shows it's 4:3. So there's absolutely
> nothing the driver could do to figure out it should indeed chose a 5:4
> resolution by default.

Keep a database of accurate EDIDs to use for all known monitors.
I thought you guy already did something like this. I was always under
the impression that monitor EDIDs in general have never been accurate
at all, this reaffirms that.

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

I'm no longer using the affected machine, so I'm not going to object all that much to this bug being ignored.

[Bryce Harrington (bryce)]

Since the hardware is no longer available for doing troubleshooting with, we'll have to close the bug for now. However please feel free to reopen if you or anyone else has the same HW and can reproduce this issue using the latest development version of Ubuntu and is willing to do some troubleshooting with it.

I've just now uploaded the 6.11.0 driver to Jaunty, and it claims to have a lot of improvements for output handling so my guess is that it may fix this issue.

[ethana2 (ethana2)]

I have swapped out my desktop machine for an eMac for my grandma to
use, but I'm rather busy these days.
--as I'm testing my bugs against the next Jaunty alpha though, I may
remember this one.

It's curious to note that on this eMac G4, (also Radeon 9200..) Mac OS
10.3.9 and 10.4.11 both default to a resolution less than that of the
screen, which I immediately set to its maximum..

[agd5f (agd5f)]

This is not actually a radeon issue, but an xserver issue as it picks the mode.

[Ajax-a (ajax-a)]

Mass closure: This bug has been untouched for more than six years, and is not obviously still valid. Please file a new report if you continue to experience issues with a current server.