On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 15:22, Lee Braiden wrote: > On Sunday 17 Aug 2003 1:43 pm, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > On Sun, 2003-08-17 at 14:33, Lee Braiden wrote: > > > No, it's a rage128. I think I saw that patch around, but wasn't sure if > > > it was advisable/still necessary/etc. If you've no horror stories and > > > such, I'll give it a go, but... is there a noteworthy reason that it's > > > not included in the driver? > > > > I guess nobody has cleaned it up (it hardcoded the panel resolution > > based on the machine type - don't know if there's a better solution for > > Rage128 based machines though) and pushed for inclusion yet. > > I've had a quick look at it, from your site. I'm not a kernel hacker, and > don't really understand it all. But it looks to me like it's not quite > hard-coded, but instead is coded using variables etc, and simply has to > initialise those at compile-time, since there's no support elsewhere for > probing panel sizes? > > If so, couldn't these variables be set in the kernel config, like they are > for some graphics tablets or touchscreens, until the support is available? > This seems LESS severe, in some ways, since laptop panels are fairly > unlikely to change, for end users.
Sure, you can do what you want. :) You could also let boot options override the panel size, à la radeonfb. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
