On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 07:48:56PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > >On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 08:46:26AM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > > >>Adam C Powell IV wrote: > >> > >>>Unfortunately, like 2.4.12, although CONFIG_FB_OF=y, it behaves as if > >>>there is no offb! > >>> > >>Found the problem. In offb_init(), somewhere between 2.4.8 and 2.4.12, > >>the normal bootx way to initialize the video has been surrounded by > >>#ifdef CONFIG_BOOTX_TEXT > >>which is not set in the Debian kernel-image packages. > >> > >>I'm not going to suggest that we reinstate that flag (just reread the > >>archives, particularly from this past February, not a good thing). But > >>in general, why is that test there? Do the tests for bootx at the start > >>of that function (prom_num_displays == 0 && boot_infos != 0) not work? > >> > >>In summary, is BootX/ofonly going to be unsupported by the Debian > >>kernel-image packages, or is there some way to make it work? > >> > >Checking back on this bug... This code still appears to be there. Have > >you talked to Ben about this? > > > No. I wrote to linuxppc-dev way back in December 10-13, thread "Why > require CONFIG_BOOTX_TEXT for so much of offb?", and Tom Rini and Peter > Bergner seemed to agree that it wasn't necessary. > > Ben reads this list, right?
Yes, but he usually needs gentle reminders. Ben, do you recall this thread at all? -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
