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

Bug#686528: linux-image-3.2.0-3-486: [lxfb] doesn't understand modes passed via GRUB_GFXPAYLOAD_LINUX in /etc/default/grub

I'm cc'ing Andres because he's previously requested various Geode config
changes to support OLPC.

On Sun, 2012-09-02 at 22:38 +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> Package: src:linux
> Version: 3.2.23-1
> Severity: normal
> For some reason, lxfb doesn't understand the recommended method for
> setting the screen mode on non-KMS framebuffers via
> GRUB_GFXPAYLOAD_LINUX in /etc/default/grub.

I think this hand-over only works with basic VGA and VESA drivers, not
with any 'native' video driver.

> This, combined with the fact that lxfb recently started to ship as a
> compiled-in feature, rather than as a module,

It looks like lxfb was always built-in on the 486 flavour and modular on
the 686 flavour, so this change results from the removal of the 686
flavour.  I don't see any good reason for the difference and I think it
should be modular on 486 too.  (Also, I notice that the Geode
framebuffer drivers are enabled on the 686-pae flavour, which doesn't
run on any of the Geode SoCs!)

> systematically results in this host booting to a rather small 80x30
> console, rather than a graphic framebuffer at a larger resolution.
> What I have configuered:
> GRUB_GFXMODE=800x600x32,800x600x24,800x600x16,800x600x8,800x600
> GRUB_GFXPAYLOAD_LINUX=1280x1024x32,1280x1024x24,1280x1024x16,1280x1024x8,1280x1024
> ... which works fine whenever vesafb use is enforced over lxfb via
> cmdline option video=vesafb, but fails whenever I let the kernel
> choose lxfb as its preferred driver.

Apparently the lxfb driver requires you to specify the mode through the
'lxfb' kernel parameter or the 'mode_option' module parameter.


Ben Hutchings
Theory and practice are closer in theory than in practice.
                                - John Levine, moderator of comp.compilers

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: