On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 22:33 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
> > How about this patch?
> >
> > Tony
> > ---
> >
> > Subject: video setup: Fix VBE DDC reading
> >
> > Add memory operand constraint and write-only modifier to the inline
> > assembly to effect the writing of
Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
How about this patch?
Tony
---
Subject: video setup: Fix VBE DDC reading
Add memory operand constraint and write-only modifier to the inline
assembly to effect the writing of the EDID block to boot_params.edid_info.
Thanks, this patch works in that Linux now
Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
How about this patch?
Tony
---
Subject: video setup: Fix VBE DDC reading
Add memory operand constraint and write-only modifier to the inline
assembly to effect the writing of the EDID block to boot_params.edid_info.
Signed-off-by: Antonino Daplas <[EMAIL
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 09:54 +0800, Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 21:17 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> Sorry if this has been hashed out before, but could you point me
> towards the gentoo
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 09:54 +0800, Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 21:17 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
Sorry if this has been hashed out before, but could you point me
towards the gentoo bugzilla entry? I'm
Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
How about this patch?
Tony
---
Subject: video setup: Fix VBE DDC reading
Add memory operand constraint and write-only modifier to the inline
assembly to effect the writing of the EDID block to boot_params.edid_info.
Signed-off-by: Antonino Daplas [EMAIL
Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
How about this patch?
Tony
---
Subject: video setup: Fix VBE DDC reading
Add memory operand constraint and write-only modifier to the inline
assembly to effect the writing of the EDID block to boot_params.edid_info.
Thanks, this patch works in that Linux now
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 22:33 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
How about this patch?
Tony
---
Subject: video setup: Fix VBE DDC reading
Add memory operand constraint and write-only modifier to the inline
assembly to effect the writing of the EDID block to
Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 09:54 +0800, Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 21:17 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
Sorry if this has been hashed out before, but could you point me towards
the gentoo bugzilla entry? I'm trying to understand how
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 09:54 +0800, Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 21:17 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> > > Sorry if this has been hashed out before, but could you point me towards
> > > the gentoo bugzilla entry? I'm trying to understand how your setup
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 09:54 +0800, Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 21:17 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
Sorry if this has been hashed out before, but could you point me towards
the gentoo bugzilla entry? I'm trying to understand how your setup broke.
Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 09:54 +0800, Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 21:17 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
Sorry if this has been hashed out before, but could you point me towards
the gentoo bugzilla entry? I'm trying to understand how
Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 21:17 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
>> Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
>>> Sorry if this has been hashed out before, but could you point me towards
>>> the gentoo bugzilla entry? I'm trying to understand how your setup broke.
>>> Which version VBE does your
Daniel Drake wrote:
Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
Sorry if this has been hashed out before, but could you point me
towards the gentoo bugzilla entry? I'm trying to understand how your
setup broke. Which version VBE does your system have?
Here's the bug:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181067
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 21:17 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> > Sorry if this has been hashed out before, but could you point me towards
> > the gentoo bugzilla entry? I'm trying to understand how your setup broke.
> > Which version VBE does your system have?
>
> Here's the
Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
Sorry if this has been hashed out before, but could you point me towards
the gentoo bugzilla entry? I'm trying to understand how your setup broke.
Which version VBE does your system have?
Here's the bug:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181067
How can we identify
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 19:58 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> So, 2.6.22-rc6-mm1 should work fine with CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID=y, or are
> >> further patches needed?
> >>
> >
> > It should, yes.
>
> It didn't work, and the bug still exists in 2.6.23-rc1: the
Hi Daniel,
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Hi,
>
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > So, 2.6.22-rc6-mm1 should work fine with CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID=y, or are
> > > further patches needed?
> > >
> >
> > It should, yes.
>
> It didn't work, and the bug still exists in 2.6.23-rc1: the
Hi,
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
So, 2.6.22-rc6-mm1 should work fine with CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID=y, or are
further patches needed?
It should, yes.
It didn't work, and the bug still exists in 2.6.23-rc1: the resolution
is wrong by 6 pixels. The user does have CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID enabled.
So far
Hi,
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
So, 2.6.22-rc6-mm1 should work fine with CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID=y, or are
further patches needed?
It should, yes.
It didn't work, and the bug still exists in 2.6.23-rc1: the resolution
is wrong by 6 pixels. The user does have CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID enabled.
So far
Hi Daniel,
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Daniel Drake wrote:
Hi,
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
So, 2.6.22-rc6-mm1 should work fine with CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID=y, or are
further patches needed?
It should, yes.
It didn't work, and the bug still exists in 2.6.23-rc1: the resolution is
wrong by
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 19:58 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
Hi,
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
So, 2.6.22-rc6-mm1 should work fine with CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID=y, or are
further patches needed?
It should, yes.
It didn't work, and the bug still exists in 2.6.23-rc1: the resolution
is wrong by 6
Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
Sorry if this has been hashed out before, but could you point me towards
the gentoo bugzilla entry? I'm trying to understand how your setup broke.
Which version VBE does your system have?
Here's the bug:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181067
How can we identify
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 21:17 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
Sorry if this has been hashed out before, but could you point me towards
the gentoo bugzilla entry? I'm trying to understand how your setup broke.
Which version VBE does your system have?
Here's the bug:
Daniel Drake wrote:
Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
Sorry if this has been hashed out before, but could you point me
towards the gentoo bugzilla entry? I'm trying to understand how your
setup broke. Which version VBE does your system have?
Here's the bug:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181067
Antonino A. Daplas wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 21:17 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
Sorry if this has been hashed out before, but could you point me towards
the gentoo bugzilla entry? I'm trying to understand how your setup broke.
Which version VBE does your system have?
Daniel Drake wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> You're complaining that we didn't query EDID when you *explicitly* asked
>> us not to. This is not a bug!
>
> I see -- I didn't realise CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID was one of options that
> you shouldn't disable unless you have a good reason. Thanks for
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
You're complaining that we didn't query EDID when you *explicitly* asked
us not to. This is not a bug!
I see -- I didn't realise CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID was one of options that
you shouldn't disable unless you have a good reason. Thanks for the
explanation.
So,
Daniel Drake wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> User error.
>> Please replace user and press any key.
>>
>> # CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID is not set
>>
>> The user has *explicitly* disabled acquisition of EDID from the
>> firmware, so of course it doesn't probe for it.
>
> I'm not versed with all this
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
User error.
Please replace user and press any key.
# CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID is not set
The user has *explicitly* disabled acquisition of EDID from the
firmware, so of course it doesn't probe for it.
I'm not versed with all this EDID and resolution stuff, but shouldn't
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
User error.
Please replace user and press any key.
# CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID is not set
The user has *explicitly* disabled acquisition of EDID from the
firmware, so of course it doesn't probe for it.
I'm not versed with all this EDID and resolution stuff, but shouldn't
Daniel Drake wrote:
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
User error.
Please replace user and press any key.
# CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID is not set
The user has *explicitly* disabled acquisition of EDID from the
firmware, so of course it doesn't probe for it.
I'm not versed with all this EDID and resolution
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
You're complaining that we didn't query EDID when you *explicitly* asked
us not to. This is not a bug!
I see -- I didn't realise CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID was one of options that
you shouldn't disable unless you have a good reason. Thanks for the
explanation.
So,
Daniel Drake wrote:
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
You're complaining that we didn't query EDID when you *explicitly* asked
us not to. This is not a bug!
I see -- I didn't realise CONFIG_FIRMWARE_EDID was one of options that
you shouldn't disable unless you have a good reason. Thanks for the
Daniel Drake wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> The patch should be fine for 2.6.22, but for -mm, the code this patches
>> doesn't even exist with git-newsetup; nor is there a CONFIG_VIDEO_SELECT
>> which could impede the production of the VESA version.
>>
>> What does your .config look like?
>
>
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The patch should be fine for 2.6.22, but for -mm, the code this patches
doesn't even exist with git-newsetup; nor is there a CONFIG_VIDEO_SELECT
which could impede the production of the VESA version.
What does your .config look like?
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The patch should be fine for 2.6.22, but for -mm, the code this patches
doesn't even exist with git-newsetup; nor is there a CONFIG_VIDEO_SELECT
which could impede the production of the VESA version.
What does your .config look like?
Daniel Drake wrote:
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The patch should be fine for 2.6.22, but for -mm, the code this patches
doesn't even exist with git-newsetup; nor is there a CONFIG_VIDEO_SELECT
which could impede the production of the VESA version.
What does your .config look like?
Andrew Morton wrote:
Well drat. I didn't merge the patch because it conflicts with
git-newsetup, and Peter believes that git-newsetup already contains an
equivalent fix. Testing 2.6.22-rc6-mm1 would confirm that. Please.
2.6.22-rc6-mm1 has the same problem (it is not fixed there).
Well
Daniel Drake wrote:
>
> 2.6.22-rc6-mm1 has the same problem (it is not fixed there).
>
I believe this patch should fix it for 2.6.22-rc6-mm1. I will check
this into the newsetup tree.
-hpa
diff --git a/arch/i386/boot/video-vesa.c b/arch/i386/boot/video-vesa.c
index 3c21bd7..e6aa9eb
On Sunday 08 July 2007 20:14:04 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 09:27:55 -0400 Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:25:31 -0400 Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> This patch solves a 2.6.20.11 (and 2.6.21)
Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Well damn, we've let this slide for too long.
>
> Guys, 2.6.22 is days away. Do we think that the below is safe to merge
> now?
>
> Add Daniel, this does fix things for you, doesn't it?
>
The patch should be fine for 2.6.22, but for -mm, the code this patches
doesn't
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 09:27:55 -0400 Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:25:31 -0400 Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> This patch solves a 2.6.20.11 (and 2.6.21) regression added by the patch
> >> titled "x86: Don't probe for DDC on
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:25:31 -0400 Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This patch solves a 2.6.20.11 (and 2.6.21) regression added by the patch
titled "x86: Don't probe for DDC on VBE1.2"
The regression caused the screen resolution to be incorrectly adjusted
by 6
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:25:31 -0400 Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch solves a 2.6.20.11 (and 2.6.21) regression added by the patch
titled x86: Don't probe for DDC on VBE1.2
The regression caused the screen resolution to be incorrectly adjusted
by 6 pixels.
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 09:27:55 -0400 Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:25:31 -0400 Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch solves a 2.6.20.11 (and 2.6.21) regression added by the patch
titled x86: Don't probe for DDC on VBE1.2
The
Andrew Morton wrote:
Well damn, we've let this slide for too long.
Guys, 2.6.22 is days away. Do we think that the below is safe to merge
now?
Add Daniel, this does fix things for you, doesn't it?
The patch should be fine for 2.6.22, but for -mm, the code this patches
doesn't even
On Sunday 08 July 2007 20:14:04 Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 09:27:55 -0400 Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:25:31 -0400 Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch solves a 2.6.20.11 (and 2.6.21) regression added by the
Daniel Drake wrote:
2.6.22-rc6-mm1 has the same problem (it is not fixed there).
I believe this patch should fix it for 2.6.22-rc6-mm1. I will check
this into the newsetup tree.
-hpa
diff --git a/arch/i386/boot/video-vesa.c b/arch/i386/boot/video-vesa.c
index 3c21bd7..e6aa9eb
Andrew Morton wrote:
Well drat. I didn't merge the patch because it conflicts with
git-newsetup, and Peter believes that git-newsetup already contains an
equivalent fix. Testing 2.6.22-rc6-mm1 would confirm that. Please.
2.6.22-rc6-mm1 has the same problem (it is not fixed there).
Well
On 06/30/2007 06:25 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Jan Beulich wrote:
>> The code to retrieve this information was (a) inside a
>> CONFIG_VIDEO_SELECT
>> section and (b) protected by a check of a variable (vbe_version) that
>> would get initialized only when a VESA mode was selected on the command
>>
On 06/30/2007 06:25 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
Jan Beulich wrote:
The code to retrieve this information was (a) inside a
CONFIG_VIDEO_SELECT
section and (b) protected by a check of a variable (vbe_version) that
would get initialized only when a VESA mode was selected on the command
line.
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:25:31 -0400 Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan Beulich wrote:
> > The code to retrieve this information was (a) inside a CONFIG_VIDEO_SELECT
> > section and (b) protected by a check of a variable (vbe_version) that
> > would get initialized only when a VESA mode
Jan Beulich wrote:
The code to retrieve this information was (a) inside a CONFIG_VIDEO_SELECT
section and (b) protected by a check of a variable (vbe_version) that
would get initialized only when a VESA mode was selected on the command
line.
This patch solves a 2.6.20.11 (and 2.6.21)
Jan Beulich wrote:
The code to retrieve this information was (a) inside a CONFIG_VIDEO_SELECT
section and (b) protected by a check of a variable (vbe_version) that
would get initialized only when a VESA mode was selected on the command
line.
This patch solves a 2.6.20.11 (and 2.6.21)
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:25:31 -0400 Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan Beulich wrote:
The code to retrieve this information was (a) inside a CONFIG_VIDEO_SELECT
section and (b) protected by a check of a variable (vbe_version) that
would get initialized only when a VESA mode was
The code to retrieve this information was (a) inside a CONFIG_VIDEO_SELECT
section and (b) protected by a check of a variable (vbe_version) that
would get initialized only when a VESA mode was selected on the command
line.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
arch/i386/boot/video.S |
The code to retrieve this information was (a) inside a CONFIG_VIDEO_SELECT
section and (b) protected by a check of a variable (vbe_version) that
would get initialized only when a VESA mode was selected on the command
line.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
arch/i386/boot/video.S |
58 matches
Mail list logo
