Hello all,
Although is not a Debian-specific matter, I believe this is the place to
ask. I have a G3 Ibook with radeon (more details below). Recently I
switched to 2.6 branch (rsyncing to source.mvista.com) because I wanted to
have XFS in my laptop (I've had very good experiences in the desktop
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 14:05, Domingo Fiesta Segura wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Although is not a Debian-specific matter, I believe this is the place to
> ask. I have a G3 Ibook with radeon (more details below). Recently I
> switched to 2.6 branch (rsyncing to source.mvista.com) because I wanted to
El Lunes, 1 de Diciembre de 2003 05:54, Benjamin Herrenschmidt escribió:
> It's indeed strange, I would have expected this config to work fine.
I've also been trying enabling I2C with similar results.
> Do you have X running ? Same problem if not ? Does the screen come back
> up at all or not ?
>P.S: I always wondered where the kernel developers or the system daemons
>(i.e. pbbuttonsd and pmud) developres found the ADB and PMU specs to
>interact with the respective devices.
I'd guess it's by looking at Darwin code. Sorry I can't help more...
--
Colin
Ne disez pas disez, mais disez d
> > Do you have X running ? Same problem if not ? Does the screen come back
> > up at all or not ?
>
> I've been doing some more tests and the results are random. I tried three
> ways of suspending the machine:
>
> 1.- Closing the lid (pmud).
> 2.- Issuing the snooze command (pmud-utils).
> 3.-
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 23:38, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > Do you have X running ? Same problem if not ? Does the screen come back
> > > up at all or not ?
> >
> > I've been doing some more tests and the results are random. I tried three
> > ways of suspending the machine:
> >
> > 1.- Clos
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 23:13, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 23:38, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > > Do you have X running ? Same problem if not ? Does the screen come back
> > > > up at all or not ?
> > >
> > > I've been doing some more tests and the results are random. I tr
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 18:04, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 07:57, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > When I do it now it seems to accelerate... it starts slow but becomes
> > > much faster...
> > >
> > > Does that sound like being caused by the anticipated scheduler ?
> > > Wha
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 07:30, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 23:20, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 23:13, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 23:38, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> [...]
> > What do you mean ? There is no way the new radeon
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 10:29, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 07:30, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 23:20, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 23:13, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 23:38, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> When I do it now it seems to accelerate... it starts slow but becomes
> much faster...
>
> Does that sound like being caused by the anticipated scheduler ?
> What I don't understand is why the cpu is at 100% while it was not with
> 2.4.
You have CONFIG_PREEMPT ? If yes, then don't look further
On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 23:20, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 23:13, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 23:38, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
[...]
> What do you mean ? There is no way the new radeonfb would be slower
> than the old one in 2.6. If you run in 8bpp
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 07:57, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > When I do it now it seems to accelerate... it starts slow but becomes
> > much faster...
> >
> > Does that sound like being caused by the anticipated scheduler ?
> > What I don't understand is why the cpu is at 100% while it was not wi
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 07:30, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
>
> [...] I find that it might be some scheduling problem and not the
> radeonfb:
>
> When I start find /home for the first time it scrolls slowly. When I do
> it a second time it is still slow. But when I did it a third time it is
> superb f
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 18:46, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 07:30, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> >
> > [...] I find that it might be some scheduling problem and not the
> > radeonfb:
> >
> > When I start find /home for the first time it scrolls slowly. When I do
> > it a second time i
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 23:38, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 18:46, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 07:30, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > >
> > > [...] I find that it might be some scheduling problem and not the
> > > radeonfb:
> > >
> > > When I start find /home fo
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 14:40, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 23:38, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 18:46, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 07:30, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
[...]
> > > I think I know what you mean now; scrolling or deleting lines in vi
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 14:40, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, did you try gnome-terminal with an anti-aliased font?
> > That would be expected to be slower.
>
> No, as there is no obvious way to use a non anti-aliased fonts just for
> the gn
At 11:34 +0100 07 Dec 2003, Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another annoying thing is that gnome-terminal is no longer able to display the
> `high' characters from 8-bit ASCII (ISO-8859-{1,15}), nor can I type them ;-(
Works fine for me as long as I've selected the correct entry fr
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Aaron Schrab wrote:
> At 11:34 +0100 07 Dec 2003, Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another annoying thing is that gnome-terminal is no longer able to display
> > the
> > `high' characters from 8-bit ASCII (ISO-8859-{1,15}), nor can I type them
> > ;-(
>
> Wor
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Aaron Schrab wrote:
> At 21:36 +0100 07 Dec 2003, Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Aaron Schrab wrote:
> > > At 11:34 +0100 07 Dec 2003, Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Another annoying thing is that gnome-terminal is no
At 21:36 +0100 07 Dec 2003, Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Aaron Schrab wrote:
> > At 11:34 +0100 07 Dec 2003, Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Another annoying thing is that gnome-terminal is no longer able to
> > > display the
> > > `high'
On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 21:51, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Aaron Schrab wrote:
> > At 21:36 +0100 07 Dec 2003, Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Aaron Schrab wrote:
> > > > At 11:34 +0100 07 Dec 2003, Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
23 matches
Mail list logo
