On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Christopher Harvey
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:52:55AM -0500, Christopher Harvey wrote:
>> Patches 1 to 4 are just cleanup. Maybe these should should be rolled
>> into one patch?
>>
>> Patch 5 is a bit more complicated.
>> On cards with very little video me
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:52:55AM -0500, Christopher Harvey wrote:
> Patches 1 to 4 are just cleanup. Maybe these should should be rolled
> into one patch?
>
> Patch 5 is a bit more complicated.
> On cards with very little video memory, (e.g 8MB) higher resolutions
> at 32bit framebuffer depths w
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Christopher Harvey wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:52:55AM -0500, Christopher Harvey wrote:
>> Patches 1 to 4 are just cleanup. Maybe these should should be rolled
>> into one patch?
>>
>> Patch 5 is a bit more complicated.
>> On cards with very little video mem
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:52:55AM -0500, Christopher Harvey wrote:
> Patches 1 to 4 are just cleanup. Maybe these should should be rolled
> into one patch?
>
> Patch 5 is a bit more complicated.
> On cards with very little video memory, (e.g 8MB) higher resolutions
> at 32bit framebuffer depths w
Patches 1 to 4 are just cleanup. Maybe these should should be rolled
into one patch?
Patch 5 is a bit more complicated.
On cards with very little video memory, (e.g 8MB) higher resolutions
at 32bit framebuffer depths will get corrupted because the required
memory is larger than what the framebuffe
Patches 1 to 4 are just cleanup. Maybe these should should be rolled
into one patch?
Patch 5 is a bit more complicated.
On cards with very little video memory, (e.g 8MB) higher resolutions
at 32bit framebuffer depths will get corrupted because the required
memory is larger than what the framebuffe