linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Intel FB pixel clock calculation fix

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <m3veah75u6.fsf@maximus.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:18:57 +0200
From:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	sylvain.meyer@...ldonline.fr, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Antonino A. Daplas" <adaplas@....net>,
	linux-fbdev-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Intel FB pixel clock calculation fix

Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

>> Intel framebuffer mis-calculated pixel clocks.

> and... what are the consequences of this miscalculation?  I need to know
> such things so that I can decide whether a change is needed in 2.6.23.  And
> 2.6.22.

The pixel clock (and thus both H and V sync) will be slower than
requested, so if you set the minimum allowed the display may not
sync. In case of really old CRT display it could theoretically
damage it.

I'm using it with PAL TV (using RGB input - SCART connector) and
the bug prevented it from working at all (TV requirements are more
strict and made the bug visible).

I think 2.6.22 would be overkill, .23 - not sure.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/