On Fre, 2003-02-28 at 17:52, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 04:05:11PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > On Don, 2003-02-27 at 21:48, Daniel Burrows wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 06:51:02PM +0100, Michel D?nzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was > > > heard to say: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wc -c /proc/fb ~ > > > > 0 /proc/fb > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> cat /proc/fb ~ > > > > 0 M9 Lf > > > > > > My, that's messed up.. > > No, that's exactly the kind of thing I'd expect to see from /proc/fb.
Indeed, this is radeonfb on a Radeon 9000 Mobility aka M9. > > > anyway, maybe I should have used the example > > > where I tested [ -n $(cat /proc/fb) ] and it failed. How's this? > > > torrent:~> cat /proc/fb > > > torrent:~> od /proc/fb > > > 0000000 > > > torrent:~> cat /proc/fb | wc -c > > > 0 > > The xserver-xfree86 config script interprets this as "kernel framebuffer > device unavailable" -- isn't that correct? Yes, it is. > > Weird. Anyway, the test certainly isn't adequate because Option > > "UseFBDev" doesn't work with generic framebuffer devices like vesafb, > > OFfb, ... > > Could you propose a better test? What will /proc/fb say when someone is > using a generif framebuffer device like vesafb, OFfb, and so forth? > > I can write the string parsing; just tell me what values I need to > ignore. Unfortunately, I don't know the output of all framebuffer devices by heart either. :) Collecting some user data might be a good idea, but I'm not sure how to best go about it. > Also, I assume that anyone using a generic framebuffer needs to be using > the "fbdev" XFree86 *driver*, right? No, he can use a specific driver for his chipset or another generic driver like vesafb if applicable. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
