[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: working xorg.conf i promised

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Brian Morris wrote:

> > But if you find that Linux 2.6 lacks functionality in 2.2 or in BSD, 
> > please tell us because then (time permitting) we could feasibly 
> > improve the drivers.
> well I don't know what 2.2 did, but on my quadra475/605 (w/CPU replace 
> w/FPU). I could not start X because framebuffer not recognizing the mode 
> 640x480 or 800x600 in 8 bit.

I don't know what 2.2 did either. Looking at the 2.6 code tells me that 
only the valkyrie driver can switch modes, which seems to agree with the 

> I think I could hard code the resolution to what I want, but that 
> obviously is not what you all want. But that was one reason I wanted to 
> try built me a kernel.

There are no compile-time options for video modes that I know of. Skimming 
the code I can see that there are some boot-time options for both the 
valkyrie driver (vmode and cmode) and for the macfb driver (vidtest and 

> I think also it would work if I upgraded the VRAM to 1MB which is 
> currently 512k. the reason is that that would let me get a more standard 
> setting from the macos which the framebuffer driver then could 
> recognize.
> I just looked at this very quickly like a month ago, but i think there 
> was a list of possible resolutions hard coded already which assumes that 
> the one i have is not. maybe it is a question though of supporting more 
> machines when you can not support them all ??

I'm afraid so. My to-do list (ordered chronologically, as I've added to it 
over the years):

- fix serial driver
- fix real time clock driver
- fix/replace NCR5380 SCSI driver
- fix Egret & PMU ADB drivers
- replace mac_esp SCSI driver with the new one
- attend to sourceforge tracker issues

...and that is just fixing or preventing regressions against 2.2.

BTW, I've almost finished updating the mac68k web site (I think). The FTP 
archive should be back online soon (as HTTP). The mailing list won't be 
coming back though, because whoever hosted it can't be contacted or even 
confirmed as the host.


Reply to: