On Samstag, 24. September 2005 13:09, Laz wrote: > On Saturday 24 September 2005 10:56, Denis Oliver Kropp wrote: > > Quoting Laz: > > > I believe the problem here is that the hardware revision can only be > > > obtained by root so this is hard-coded by Marks patch to 0x11 which works > > > for VT1622A but I'm not sure how much the hwrev is used in the code. It > > > looks like the main is is to test whether it is 0x10 or greater. Not sure > > > of hte best way of getting round this: I don't like running stuff as root > > > unless it _really_ needs to! > > > > There should be a small tool to determine the revision and set it in > > directfbrc. > > This is what I cobbled together from the DirectFB unichrome driver to > determine my revision number:
[snip] With this program I get bodega2 root # ./via-revision Revision = 0xb7fe0a03 When "val" is initialized to 0 I get: bodega2 root # ./via-revision Revision = 0x3 And that translates to which chip version ? bodega2 root # cat /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 vendor_id : CentaurHauls cpu family : 6 model : 9 model name : VIA Nehemiah stepping : 1 cpu MHz : 999.553 cache size : 64 KB > Something similar could be used to set a value for 'unichrome-rev-no', or > similar, in /etc/directfbrc. It needs a fall-back value or error message if > not set, though. Just looking through to see where it gets parsed... > -- Stefan Lucke _______________________________________________ directfb-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-users
