> > > I think that it is the other way around. PC MotherBoards are going to > > > request a VGA mode that needs to be supported. This VGA mode is only > > > used until the OS loads a graphics driver. Linux uses VGA/VESA for text > > > mode console so that is going to be needed unless we have a Kernel > > > driver for console mode. > > > > This seems like a good time for a reminder of the following. If the > > system firmware wants to talk at say 640x480 but you have a fixed > > frequency or limited multi-scan monitor that does not do 640x480, > > the board needs to convert. > > Our video controller design doesn't provision for scaling.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but it looks to me like you've gone from scaling to integer-only scaling to no scaling? I would think that scaling isn't essential to dealing with the firmware. The firmware output needs to be readable, it doesn't necessarily need to fill the display. I do think that OGC would benefit greatly from scaling, but not for talking to the firmware. > However, if something asks for 640x480, but we need to do 1152x900, we > could just put the lower res in the upper left corner of the display > or something. The center of the display would probably be better. On CRTs the center tends to have better focus, and if the display is a TV it is likely to have overscan. Which I guess leads to: are there systems whose firmware insists on a resolution higher than 640x480? What is the proper thing to do if the firmware insists on a resolution higher than the actual display? Hopefully this is a very rare case. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
