Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 02:44:12AM +0100, Chris Rutter wrote:
> > Skimming the source, it would seem another problem is where Xfbdev is
> > told to use the `default' mode and doesn't attempt to reset the virtual
> > height. What it really ought to do is take the mode param
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Is this the reason why you were finding that my patch didn't seem to work?
> (sorry, I forgot to say that I wasn't running in "default")
I'm totally guessing. This is based on a couple of off-hand thoughts
having spent five minutes staring at the sour
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 02:44:12AM +0100, Chris Rutter wrote:
> Skimming the source, it would seem another problem is where Xfbdev is
> told to use the `default' mode and doesn't attempt to reset the virtual
> height. What it really ought to do is take the mode parameters, unset
> text, and reset
Skimming the source, it would seem another problem is where Xfbdev is
told to use the `default' mode and doesn't attempt to reset the virtual
height. What it really ought to do is take the mode parameters, unset
text, and reset the mode, I suppose; design oversight?
Why do no other architectures
4 matches
Mail list logo
