FC9 Intel 865G wont do 1600x1200

[danespen]

I have Mandriva 10 installed on this machine. I recently installed FC 9 and it picked the "intel" driver instead of the "i810" it used for Mandriva.

I've had this machine running at 1600x1200 but FC 9 refuses to go that high.

The GUI only offers the choices of 1024x768 and lower.
xrandr shows more choices but nothing higher.

The only thing relevant I see in the Xorg.0.log is:

(II) intel(0): Using fuzzy aspect match for initial modes
(II) intel(0): Output VGA using initial mode 1024x768
(II) intel(0): detected 128 kB GTT.
(II) intel(0): detected 892 kB stolen memory.

How do I get the "intel" driver to use a higher resolution.
The video card is an onboard:

82865G Integrated Graphics Controller rev 2

[pwca]

Please post contents of: /etc/X11/xorg.conf

[danespen]

I read that the Intel driver doesn't use much from the xorg.conf. There are no mode lines or modes listed:

# Xorg configuration created by system-config-display

Section "ServerLayout"
Identifier "single head configuration"
Screen 0 "Screen0" 0 0
InputDevice "Mouse0" "CorePointer"
InputDevice "Keyboard0" "CoreKeyboard"
EndSection

Section "Files"
FontPath "catalogue:/etc/X11/fontpath.d"
FontPath "built-ins"
EndSection

Section "Module"
Load "xtrap"
Load "extmod"
Load "glx"
Load "dri"
Load "dbe"
Load "GLcore"
Load "dri2"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
Identifier "Keyboard0"
Driver "kbd"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
Identifier "Mouse0"
Driver "mouse"
Option "Protocol" "auto"
Option "Device" "/dev/input/mice"
Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5 6 7"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
Identifier "Monitor0"
VendorName "Monitor Vendor"
ModelName "Monitor Model"
EndSection

Section "Device"

### Available Driver options are:-
### Values: <i>: integer, <f>: float, <bool>: "True"/"False",
### <string>: "String", <freq>: "<f> Hz/kHz/MHz"
### [arg]: arg optional
#Option "NoAccel" # [<bool>]
#Option "SWcursor" # [<bool>]
#Option "ColorKey" # <i>
#Option "CacheLines" # <i>
#Option "Dac6Bit" # [<bool>]
#Option "DRI" # [<bool>]
#Option "NoDDC" # [<bool>]
#Option "ShowCache" # [<bool>]
#Option "XvMCSurfaces" # <i>
#Option "PageFlip" # [<bool>]
Identifier "Card0"
Driver "intel"
VendorName "Intel Corporation"
BoardName "82865G Integrated Graphics Controller"
BusID "PCI:0:2:0"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
Identifier "Screen0"
Device "Card0"
Monitor "Monitor0"
DefaultDepth 16
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Depth 1
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Depth 4
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Depth 8
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Depth 15
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Depth 16
EndSubSection
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Depth 24
Modes "800x600"
EndSubSection
EndSection

[Hlingler]

(1) Mandriva 10 and Fedora 9 do not necessarily use the same release of X11/Xorg.
(2) In F9, driver "i810" is just a sym-link to driver "intel".
(3) Acceleration method and other factors may affect available screen resolution(s) and refresh rate(s).
(4) Modes and modelines are optional, not required.

V

P.S. Post contents of xorg.conf here, and upload /var/log/Xorg.0.log to pastebin.com and post link here.

[danespen]

Hi,

I edited my xorg.conf into the prior message, did an upload here (but wasn't clear where it went), and just put it on pastebin.com using my name (danespen).

I did make one attempt at using i810 (it was a choice in the GUI) but X wouldn't come up at all when I did that.

[Hlingler]

I can't access the pastebin.com info as I don't know how/where to put your name.

BACK UP your xorg.conf file, then edit to:
> remove (or comment out) the entire "Files" section - it's not needed and specifying the wrong/incomplete info could bork it.
> remove (or comment out) the entire "Modules" section - it's not needed and specifying the wrong/incomplete info could bork it.
> edit "Screen" section as follows:Section "Screen"
Identifier "Screen0"
Device "Card0"
Monitor "Monitor0"
SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Depth 24
EndSubSection
EndSection Re-start X. See what happens. Lots more to try if that fails.

V

[danespen]

I'll try it, but I think my config has essentially the same thing. This is my work machine so I can't try it until monday.

I've put the xorg.conf file here:

http://mysite.verizon.net/despen/xorg.conf.txt

[Hlingler]

Yes, I saw the xorg.conf in Post #3, but I was hoping to look at /var/log/Xorg.0.log to see if any good info in there....

V

[danespen]

Xorg.0.log here:

http://mysite.verizon.net/despen/Xorg.0.log.txt

[Hlingler]

You should also update to a modern kernel - this one was released in the Jurassic Age:Current Operating System: Linux dane-2.cc.telcordia.com 2.6.25-14.fc9.i686 #1 SMP Thu May 1 06:28:41 EDT 2008 i686I have: 2.6.27.5-41.fc9.i686

In fact, you should do a complete system software update.

V

P.S> The X11R7.4/Xorg-1.5 Window System released with F9 was not finished at the time, and was... less than adequate for normal use. Updating should fix a lot of stuff.

[danespen]

The new kernel is already there. I didn't expect it to do anything to the video driver. I'll reboot and test again Monday.

[Hlingler]

Ah, OK, I see. Well, as long as all other software was updated, I don't see why the new kernel should affect this either, but....

Good Luck,
V

[danespen]

<<P.S> The X11R7.4/Xorg-1.5 Window System released with F9 was not finished at the time, and was... less than adequate for normal use. Updating should fix a lot of stuff.>>

Well, I worked at getting this problem fixed for quite a while and finally applied all the updates and restarted X windows. (I was at run-level 3).

Your comment doesn't give me a good feeling. Neither did the GUI which identified this driver as "experimental". When I click on the hardware tab it doesn't recognize the display either. I opened that dialog and told it I have a 1600x1200 CRT but that didn't help either, the video card part of the GUI still offered the lower resolution.

I'm not married to the idea of FC9. Is FC10 any better or should I be thinking of some other distro? The only reason I leaned toward Fedora is that I also admin a few RH servers at work.

What would really help is some tool or setting that would show what this driver is doing that tells it it doesn't have higher resolutions available.

[expertmax]

You should consider upgrading to FC10 because it has newer X version (maybe not?) and video drivers updated and refreshed ! I would give it a try !

[Hlingler]

<<P.S> The X11R7.4/Xorg-1.5 Window System released with F9 was not finished at the time, and was... less than adequate for normal use. Updating should fix a lot of stuff.>>

Well, I worked at getting this problem fixed for quite a while and finally applied all the updates and restarted X windows. (I was at run-level 3).OK, and the results were... ?Your comment doesn't give me a good feeling. Neither did the GUI which identified this driver as "experimental". When I click on the hardware tab it doesn't recognize the display either. I opened that dialog and told it I have a 1600x1200 CRT but that didn't help either, the video card part of the GUI still offered the lower resolution.My comment was meant to drive home the point that software updates were required, but you then responded that you are 100% up-to-date, so that's taken care of. The "experimental" driver is probably the "experimental" modesetting stuff, or maybe the Acceleration Method (EXA versus XAA). You may be able to force legacy driver mode(s) - I alluded to this when I said "other things yet to try". The "hardware tab" I assume refers to system-config-display ("Display Manager"), and there does seem to be some problems/regression with hardware detection, but this is not really a problem, since generic settings will do. Available screen resolutions depend on several factors, the driver and available VRAM being most important.I'm not married to the idea of FC9. Is FC10 any better or should I be thinking of some other distro? The only reason I leaned toward Fedora is that I also admin a few RH servers at work.If you are not commited to F9, I think a try at F10 might be a "Good Idea™©®".What would really help is some tool or setting that would show what this driver is doing that tells it it doesn't have higher resolutions available.That tool would be xrandr. The Xorg.0.log shows why other resolutions were disallowed.

V

[LBCoder]

Don't be too worried about the GUI. Mine doesn't show anything higher than 640x480, but I have TWO 1920x1200's working at native resolution.

Says in your xorg.conf in the "Screen" section that Modes "800x600". It pretty much means what it looks like. Change it to what you think it should be.

Also note this; intel cards are known for having very limited modes available in the video bios. 1600x1200 may not be in the list, in which case you may need to use a hack "915resolution".

[Hlingler]

Yeah, I keep forgetting about that too:
yum install 915resolution

V

P.S. Requires a re-boot to use.

[danespen]

<<OK, and the results were... ?>>

The results of updating was no improvement, the log I posted was after the update and restart of X but before a reboot.

<<That tool would be *xrandr*. The Xorg.0.log shows why other resolutions were disallowed.>>

All the Xorg log shows that appears important is:

(II) intel(0): Output VGA connected
(II) intel(0): Using fuzzy aspect match for initial modes
(II) intel(0): Output VGA using initial mode 1024x768
(II) intel(0): detected 128 kB GTT.
(II) intel(0): detected 892 kB stolen memory.
(==) intel(0): video overlay key set to 0x83e

None of that tells me why 1600x1200 isn't a choice.

As far as Xrandr being the source of modes, I downloaded some source code and took a look. The gnome-control-center capplet, "display" calls XRRGetScreenInfo which is in libXrandr. libXrandr asks the server for screen info like this:

GetReq (RRGetScreenInfo, req);

I haven't followed it any farther, but I'd guess something in the intel driver would have to tell the server about the resolutions available? I looked thru the intel driver a bit but didn't find anything.

Another thing I haven't mentioned, ages ago, the first time I installed Linux on this machine I had similar issues. I remember having to go into the BIOS and change the video memory from 1meg to 8meg. I've tried booting with both settings with no improvement. I think I have it at 8meg right now.

[danespen]

Yeah, I keep forgetting about that too:
yum install 915resolution

V

P.S. Requires a re-boot to use.

Hmm. I did try to yum install that. It couldn't find the package. Do I need another repository?

[Hlingler]

<<That tool would be *xrandr*. The Xorg.0.log shows why other resolutions were disallowed.>>

All the Xorg log shows that appears important is:

(II) intel(0): Output VGA connected
(II) intel(0): Using fuzzy aspect match for initial modes
(II) intel(0): Output VGA using initial mode 1024x768
(II) intel(0): detected 128 kB GTT.
(II) intel(0): detected 892 kB stolen memory.
(==) intel(0): video overlay key set to 0x83e

None of that tells me why 1600x1200 isn't a choice.Indeed it doesn't. Hm, perhaps the output has been made quiet: in F8, all mode detection is logged as it occurs (near middle of file); in F9, it's moved to the end of the log file. There's an option to force verbose logging. In the "Device" section:Option "ModeDebug" "on"Another thing I haven't mentioned, ages ago, the first time I installed Linux on this machine I had similar issues. I remember having to go into the BIOS and change the video memory from 1meg to 8meg. I've tried booting with both settings with no improvement. I think I have it at 8meg right now.AH! I must have missed that. 8 MB VRAM is not enough for more than 1024x768. But I thought for sure that I saw much more than 8 MB VRAM:(==) intel(0): VideoRam: 131072 KBTry turning up VRAM in BIOS anyways. There is no such thing as "too high" - set it as high as possible. X11/Xorg may ignore this setting anyway, as we see above....

V

[Hlingler]

Hmm. I did try to yum install that. It couldn't find the package. Do I need another repository?I see F8 RPM only - I assumed that it was unchanged for F9+, but maybe it was dropped instead (no longer needed) ?

V

[danespen]

I don't really understand the BIOS option. I thought 8M was too small too but the only choices BIOS offers are 1 and 8. It does manage to do 1600x1200 though. It has some kind of "Legacy" option. I tried toggling that too with no improvement.

The "ModeDebug" thing sounds good, I'll give it a shot.

Thanks for all the help so far.

[danespen]

Hi,

The reply by Hlingler led to the solution.

After I turned ModeDebug on the Xorg.0.log showed that the driver was rejecting 1600x1200 because the vert or horiz frequency wasn't adequate.

FC9 didn't probe anything about the monitor. I pulled the VertRefresh and HorizRefresh lines out of my Mandrake xorg.conf and inserted them into my FC9 xorg.conf and I was good to go.

Thanks all.

[Hlingler]

Hi,

The reply by Hlingler led to the solution.

After I turned ModeDebug on the Xorg.0.log showed that the driver was rejecting 1600x1200 because the vert or horiz frequency wasn't adequate.

FC9 didn't probe anything about the monitor. I pulled the VertRefresh and HorizRefresh lines out of my Mandrake xorg.conf and inserted them into my FC9 xorg.conf and I was good to go.

Thanks all.The default values used by X11 are extremely conservative, to the point of causing things like this case. There probably was a probe, but it must have failed for some reason. You did the correct thing by replacing with known values from MFR.

Glad it worked out. Enjoy.
V

[danespen]

Those aren't known values from the MFR, they are known values from Mandrake. I've had a few versions of Mandrake on this machine and they've always been able to probe the CRT for the manufacturer and model:

Section "Monitor"
Identifier "monitor1"
VendorName "Sony"
ModelName "Sony GDM-20SHT"
HorizSync 30.0-107.0
VertRefresh 50.0-160.0
...

Something in FC9 is broken in my opinion.

First it doesn't get this important info from the monitor, then in the documentation for this driver it says that the driver doesn't use anything from the xorg.conf file (or something to that effect).

I admit, it's not all that common a monitor. They came with Sun Ultra 5's. I doubt they were ever available anywhere else.

[danespen]

Well, it's years later, let me post the ultimate outcome.

I eventually got the resolution to 1600x1200 but the display speed was so bad, I gave up and continued using Mandrake 10 until very recently.

A few weeks ago I installed FC11 on the same hardware and got the same issue. The maximum resolution I could get was 1024x768. Eventually I saw the posts about using NOMODESET as a kernel boot option. After booting with NOMODESET, I was offered display resolutions up to 2048x1536. And the monitor actually worked at that resolution.

Success at last.