On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 04:26 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > 2008/3/17, Victor Lowther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Intel 945 GMA > > nVidia GeForce 7400 Go > > > > That gives us a few different drivers options: > > > > Intel video driver > > nv open-source video driver > > nvidia binary driver > > Honestly, I don't really care for proprietary drivers, but I > understand your needs.
As long as there is an understanding that they are not just my needs. I am not the only person who must run using proprietary drivers on my hardware, and that we cannot ignore them. > > The whitelist from s2ram specifies that the D820 requires the vbe_post > > quirk and the vbe_mode quirk. The HAL quirks list specifies just the > > vbe_mode hack. > > > > I run the nvidia binary drivers, and if I allow either of those quirks > > to happen the system will hardlock. > > > > On those rare occasions when I have used the nv open-source drivers it > > has not survived a suspend/resume either. I have no particular desire > > to further troubleshoot this particular scenario -- the nv drivers are > > unsuitable for my system (they cannot driver my flatpanel at 1920x1200 > > without video corruption). > > > > I don't have access to a D820 with the Intel graphics drivers, but I > > suspect the quirks in the s2ram whitelist are written to cover that > > particular hardware combination. > > > > This would not be such a big deal if it was easy to tell s2ram or the > > HAL quirks list what to do on X system with Y video hardware and Z video > > driver -- I would patch my local copy of the HAL quirks list and submit > > a new quirks entry covering that combination. Problem is, the HAL > > quirks list only appear to look at system mfgr/make/model -- I have not > > been able to find an exmaple of anything more complicated, and the docs > > on the fd.o HAL quirks list are lacking on how to write a new quirk that > > can express all the conditions I need to express. > > > > Richard can probably give you more insight on this. > > > Asking an end-user to write their own quirk entry > > in /usr/share/hal/fdi/information would be a great way to drive people > > away from Linux. > > Imho it's much worse to provide several different ways to do the same thing. > > I don't think it's that hard to cp the fdi file from > /usr/share/hal/fdi into /etc/hal/fdi and simply change the quirks for > your model. > Especially as this is very well documented. I think you vastly overestimate the willingness or ability of a nontechnical user to make the quirk changes you are describing. Either that, or too may years to doing technical support have made me very, very cynical in this department. I have no problem picking one method of overriding HAL parameters and coding to it exclusivly. But that capability must be there, if only for troubleshooting purposes. > > The easiest thing for me to do as a service to the end users is to make > > it easy for them to override HAL when it is getting it wrong. The > > current quirk_none is not the best way of doing that, but it is loads > > easier to say either of > > now, type 'echo video >>/etc/pm/blacklist' > > now, type 'echo --quirk-none >>/etc/pm/parameters' > > As I explained in my earlier mail, this only allows to clear the > quirks, not override them. In case you need --quirk-s3-bios, it's not > possible. > With a hal fdi file in /etc/ you can easily achieve this. I am well aware of what my QUIRK_NONE patches do and do not do. They meet my needs. Any help generalizing them would ne much appreciated. > Cheers, > Michael > > -- Victor Lowther Ubuntu Certified Professional _______________________________________________ Pm-utils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-utils
