On Sunday 17 April 2005 12:14 am, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > You're a genius! I gave that a go (actually I made that edit in 3 > > locations in that file, per your earlier email on the topic -- was that > > okay, or should I do it with just the one line?) and it seemed to help. > > There isn't that much genius in there, and I still have no explanation > why that works in fact. There is something really strange happening with > those machines.
I wish you were in Southern California. I'd volunteer my machine as a guinea pig for you. > There are still issues with USB, I would be careful if I were you, that > is unplug stuffs before suspend. Okay. Vanilla 2.6.7 worked absolutely beautifully for me -- I could do anything I want with USB devices, suspend worked great, etc. It only had trouble with DRI, and of course no HAL, which is what prompted this painful process. :-) > > Right now I'm tracking down why the X server won't go past 640x480. It's > > a problem also with unpatched 2.6.12-rc2, so now I'm compiling vanilla > > 2.6.11 to see if the problem manifests itself there. The Xorg log reads: > > The X server behaviour has nothing to do with the kernel here. <snip> > The problem is that the dislay in this machine doesn't do DDC and the X > server is too dumb to try to obtain the panel size without it. Just do > what you did, that is put some wide enough refresh ranges and tell it to > do 1024x768x60. Yeah, I'd think so, except that 1024x768 worked under Ubuntu's 2.6.10, and my vanilla 2.6.7, and the kernel's the only change I've been making on the machine. Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
