Re: what happened to vesafb support in 2.6.13-1?
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 02:40:03AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 02:35:39PM +0200, Maximilian Attems wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 03:31:18PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 06:00:55PM +0200, Maximilian Attems wrote:
> > > > the old legacy modular vesafb patch got dropped.
> > > > and it seems it was overlooked to set them to yes.
> > >
> > > I think I might have made that change, and at the very least
> > > I remember discussing it. I think that the idea was that
> > > it has actually been superceeded by another module. However
> > > if this isn't the case, I guess setting it to yes is a good idea.
> > > Does anyone know what this might break?
> >
> > well the d-i guys should get a notice:
> > currently vesa failed by default so they dropped into vga16,
> > which is known not to work on a range of laptops.
>
> On some laptops, only vga16fb works. On others, only vesafb works. The
> reason we try both is so that you can have vga16fb by default (which has
> fairly good coverage, albeit not perfect) and try vesafb if you know the
> right vga=MODE argument to give the kernel.
>
> Matthew Garrett tells me that only vga16fb supports suspend/resume.
>
> > as background info the old half-baken vesa modular patch conflicts
> > with upstream fixes. hch, waldi and i decided that to be a good
> > time to drop it.
>
> Unless the hardware support of one or other framebuffer driver has been
> radically improved, or unless there's something else I'm
> misunderstanding, I think we still need modular vesafb?
Modular vesafb is horribly broken and Debian-specific.
I'm happy with any solution that involves not having
moduler vesafb.
--
Horms
Reply to: