Dan Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see that this is a Debian specific patch:
>
> 044_chips_default_to_noaccel_on_69k.diff
Does anyone know why and when this patch was included in Debian? The
only reference to it I could find in the changelog (or old changelog)
was that it was resy
Dan Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dan Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Package: xserver-xfree86
>> Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-14
>>
>> (WW) CHIPS(0): Acceleration is disabled by default on C&T 69000 as it has
>> been reported
>> to be broken: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzill
Dan Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: xserver-xfree86
> Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-14
>
> I upgraded from an old (4.1) version of XFree86 to 4.3.0.dfsg.1-14
> today, and now acceleration is disabled for my chipset by the driver:
>
> (WW) CHIPS(0): Acceleration is disabled by default on
Dan Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron M. Ucko) writes:
>
>> Dan Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Option "Accel"
>>
>> You may need to use a double negative here; does
>>
>> Option "NoAccel" "off"
>>
>> work any better?
>
> I won't have a chance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron M. Ucko) writes:
> The chips(4) manpage
I didn't know about that manpage. It says that the 69000 should
support acceleration. Also, the README.chips.gz distributed
with xserver-xfree86 says that X 4.3 has "heaps more acceleration".
Dan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [E
Dan Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I won't have a chance to try that until tomorrow, but I don't think it
> will help. The first reason is that the XF86Config-4 man page says
> that the two forms are equivalent. The second reason is that the
The chips(4) manpage gave me the impressio
Le Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:10:48 -0400, Dan Christensen a écrit :
>I have no idea why such a big change
> would be made in a way that wasn't easily reversible, but maybe
> there's more to the story than just one user reporting problems.
They already did it for 3d accel on the voodoo/banshee driver (i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron M. Ucko) writes:
> Dan Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Option "Accel"
>
> You may need to use a double negative here; does
>
> Option "NoAccel" "off"
>
> work any better?
I won't have a chance to try that until tomorrow, but I don't think it
will help.
Dan Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That URL seems to only show one user with a problem, whereas my old
> laptop with that chip has uptimes of over a year. It might make sense
> to have acceleration disabled by default, but it would be nice if I
> could insist on acceleration by putting
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-14
Severity: normal
I upgraded from an old (4.1) version of XFree86 to 4.3.0.dfsg.1-14
today, and now acceleration is disabled for my chipset by the driver:
(WW) CHIPS(0): Acceleration is disabled by default on C&T 69000 as it has been
reported
to
10 matches
Mail list logo
