[Arm-netbook] Question about resolution on the micro-desktop

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Julie Marchant <onpon4 at riseup.net> wrote:
> On 01/13/2017 12:30 PM, dumblob wrote:
>> Also, if all the housings must support the rates of 1366x768, then I
>> would say it's too much.
>
> I think it's obvious that's not what the standard says. It says that the
> *card* must support 1366x768. That's very different from requiring the
> *display* to support 1366x768. The only thing the display is required to
> do is support a resolution within the range the cards are required to
> support, so you can't have a type II housing that is only capable of
> displaying at 1920x1080. But having a type II housing that is only
> capable of displaying at 800x480 would be perfectly fine.

 *thinks*.... yes that's all completely correct.

 so.  version 1 of the standard says, housings can go *up* to 1366x768.

 version 2 (yet to be written up) says, if housings *WANT* to go over
1366x768, they MUST be prepared to provide hardware-level scaling so
that CARDS which only support up to 1366x768 may say to the Housing:
"yep, i only do 1366x768: your responsibility to deal with that".

 if you plug in an HDMI monitor (which has auto-scaling) it's fine: a
version 1 Card can go "i'll take native 1366x768 over upscaled
1366x768-1920x1080, thank you" but for something like a laptop or
all-in-one PC where the LCD has a fixed resolution of say 1600x900 or
1920x1080, that's where hardware-level scaling would kick in.

l.