Felix von Leitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any ideas? It's a VIA based Athlon board. Worked fine with 2.4.0 and
> 2.4.1. The only change was that I added rivafb, which finally adds
> Geforce support in 2.4.2. /proc/interrupts does not show any interrupts
> assigned to rivafb, maybe ther
Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> Current (2.4.0pre8) hgafb will misdetect MDA only cards and
> then crash - last message briefly seen before screen clears is
>
> hgafb: with 32K of memory detected.
>
> A comparison to the detection code in XFree86 shows that hgafb
> forgets to return failure if the s
Louis Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I gave upgraded to 2.4.2pre on my RH7 box and while using riva-128 fb
> noticed when in X all the white parts of my desktop are to dark, it is
> almost unreadable. I think it might have to do with video timing, is
> there a way to fix this?
H
Louis Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm using XFree86-4.0.1 with the nv driver. You are right, it's ver
> 0.9.2 for the fb.
>
> Where can I get the patch? Should I upgrade to XFree86-4.0.2?
Not yet, we have to write that patch first... :) I'll grab an XFree
source soon.
Please test othe
/me wrote:
> Louis Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm using XFree86-4.0.1 with the nv driver. You are right, it's ver
> > 0.9.2 for the fb.
> >
> > Where can I get the patch? Should I upgrade to XFree86-4.0.2?
>
> Not yet, we have to write that patch first... :) I'll grab an XFree
>
> Date: 23 May 2001 22:44:38 +0200
> From: Juan Quintela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PATCH] hga depmod fix
>
>
> Hi
> if you compile hga as a module, you get unresolved symbols,
> you need the following patch for it.
> The
Hi!
Steven A. DuChene wrote:
> I have a Riva128 based video card in a older SMP P-Pro system and with all
> of the lastest 2.4 series of kernels (mostly the ac stuff) I have screwy colors
> on the console (the penguin boot logos are shades of blue) and initially when
> I start X (XFree86
Krzysztof Rusocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as i noticed - since 2.4.6
> there should be defined
>
> #define INCLUDE_LINUX_LOGO_DATA
>
> instead of
>
> #define INCLUDE_LINUX_LOGOBW
>
> otherwise linux logos do not get included and unresolved symbol occures
> patch against 2.4.7-pr
8 matches
Mail list logo