Re: working xorg.conf i promised
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Brian Morris wrote:
> On 7/28/07, Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > 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 FAQ.
>
> I am not trying to switch modes, I am simply trying to start the X
> server, from the mode I booted in ! Referring to the modes I meant
> trying to boot in that mode and start the server in the same mode !!
OK, I see you are just trying to use the mode set by MacOS.
> > > 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 inverse).
>
> I mean in the framebuffer code where it supposedly reads the mode from
> the system and sets the framebuffer up, that is apparently where the
> error is. IF IRC, the xserver is getting passed a fixed mode which the
> framebuffer driver in the kernel has judged incorrecty as the mode the
> system is in,
>
> That is, the modes of the 475/605 are probably in compatible in a formal
> sense with what some other model uses. when the framebuffer code has to
> resort to guessing, it uses a list of models and fixed or default modes.
>
> So I would just cut that piece of code out and put in 800x600x8@56hz and
> recompile the kernel --- that would at least test that this is indeed
> the problem. But other machines probably would then hang just like mine
> did, if that is the guessing mode, so I could not give you a patch, only
> a confirmation if it does work for me.
I can't comment. I don't know how that stuff works, nor even whether this
is a kernel issue or not. I'd have to try and reproduce the problem, which
is gonna need etch, and I don't have it installed yet.
> >
> > > 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 ??
>
> please refer to above as to what I meant ...
> >
> > 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.
>
> I think it is really good that you both take responsibility and include
> your limits in it. I wish everyone did that.
I only take responsibility for my own code. As for the rest, I'm all care.
> I only responded because you ask, and I did not ask you to take care of
> it, but I thought people should hear about it.
>
> I had read that the 605 was the second most popular '040 mac after the
> 630, so I am surprised if no one tried X on a 605 before.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Is this someplace we could stick custom packages such as cross compilers
> or kernels tailored for specific machines ? or even emile cd images ?
It used to be used for cross compilers and kernel releases, etc. These
days the sourceforge file release page is used for that (and the emile
project does the same). The FTP archive exists only for posterity.
-f
> >
> > -f
> >
>
Reply to: