From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.120]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.5262.1587571518963614696 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 09:05:19 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=ajtXHy/B; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 205.139.110.120, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1587571518; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=FD61kM4prKv0MRX0jf7+d+FRsN10wugBezZK7ZM89gg=; b=ajtXHy/BSNkQDYjK2/GaF+ndEce/fW6vmyR/KEQ42gYYU42dMo5clQlDRXpCXNRlBXdblA 23y1Dq55O5lJyn+VL8xvlTisYlk9UyndFcpWkbOmVy0Nf6/sNwVfxX11WGML/AkFr0G8yu /YQt+eLphMkoTgnKC2OokEQTrJVQVUk= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-404-4YAN2_xxOUqf0rIhvNqcYQ-1; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 12:05:15 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 4YAN2_xxOUqf0rIhvNqcYQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E86B18C8C22; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 16:05:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-113-154.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.154]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E06A19756; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 16:05:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [edk2-discuss] Load Option passing. Either bugs or my confusion. To: Hou Qiming Cc: Gerd Hoffmann , valerij zaporogeci , discuss@edk2.groups.io, "Marcel Apfelbaum (GMail address)" , edk2-devel-groups-io , qemu devel list References: <623b1855-285c-cce3-c806-c17e5fd217ea@redhat.com> <5211.1586899245384995995@groups.io> <20200420141303.dxjqgvmzglrjtsly@sirius.home.kraxel.org> <9aed493a-2187-cacd-5631-54fb9973509c@redhat.com> From: "Laszlo Ersek" Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 18:05:06 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 04/22/20 09:42, Hou Qiming wrote: > A little off topic thing: isn't the default resolution supposed to be > 1024x768? No. > This is the Microsoft regulation which all my physical devices > seem to follow: > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/test/hlk/testref/6afc8979-df62-4d86-8f6a-99f05bbdc7f3 Key term being "Microsoft regulation". The UEFI spec requires discrete ("plug-in") graphics devices to support at least either 800x600x32 or 640x480x32. And the edk2 (not just OVMF) default for the console resolution is 800x600. (See PcdVideoHorizontalResolution and PcdVideoVerticalResolution in "MdeModulePkg/MdeModulePkg.dec".) > And when the user provides an EDID one should parse it and set the default > resolution to match it. But that's a less important feature. It's more complex than you might think, and (to me personally) it seems to require more time than its importance justifies. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749250 Laszlo