Bug#689433: marked as done (base: Problem with edid checksum at boot sequence)
Your message dated
with message-id
and subject line Closing this bug (BTS maintenance for src:linux bugs)
has caused the Debian Bug report #689433,
regarding base: Problem with edid checksum at boot sequence
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
689433: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=689433
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: base: Problem with edid checksum at boot sequence
- From: geoffbou <geoffreyboutroy@laposte.net>
- Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 17:03:04 +0200
- Message-id: <20121002150304.3828.86407.reportbug@espribeat.home>
Package: base
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
I've got this at boot :
drm error edid checksum is invalid 255
this repeats 4 or 5 times
The system is starting correctly but there is this problem before
I didn't found the good answer on google.
I've got an intel graphic card
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi
This bug was filed for a very old kernel or the bug is old itself
without resolution.
If you can reproduce it with
- the current version in unstable/testing
- the latest kernel from backports
please reopen the bug, see https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control
for details.
Regards,
Salvatore
--- End Message ---
Reply to: