XAA documentation
Where is XAA documented? Google is unaware of it, which is a bad omen. Does documentation exist? ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Driver i810 ignores modes created by 855resolution
Hi, Please, help me. I have a Compal CY27 laptop with the 82852/855GM Integrated Graphics Device (rev 02) (lspci output). Even though the BIOS allow me to change the memory allocated to video (32M right now), Xfree only see two built in modes: (**) I810(0): *Built-in mode 800x600 (**) I810(0): *Built-in mode 640x480 From previous posts, I concluded that my VBIOS only lists these two modes (even though 855resolution -l shows other modes, including the desired 1024x640). I tried to replace the 800x600 mode by 1024x768 using Poirer's 855resolution , but it does not work (Yes, I included a 1024x768 modeline in the X config file). I loose the (replaced) 800x600 mode, and can not get (the new) 1024x768 mode, ending only with (old) 640x480 mode. After patching, XFree only finds one Built-in mode, 640x480. How does XFree (i810?) detects the Built-in modes? What does mean the * in message *Built-in? Why XFree only finds two Built-in modes before patching (while WindowsXP and a commercial X server, Xi Graphics, both can reach 1024x768)? Why it only finds the old 640x480 mode after patching? What happens to the new (patched) 1024x768 mode? Thanks. Regards, Sergio ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Driver i810 ignores modes created by 855resolution
Nqnsome schrieb: Why it only finds the old 640x480 mode after patching? What happens to the new (patched) 1024x768 mode? In some previous post you already found out that ModeAttributes value for the 1024x768 mode is 0x9a which (among other things) means that the mode is not supported by present hardware configuration. I think the same happens with the new patched mode. If the mode is marked as not supported, XFree86 won't list it as built-in mode since it can't be set by calling the video BIOS. I don't know why your BIOS always marks this mode as not supported. I had this once with an embedded system which was only configured for a 800x600 LCD. Maybe the company who built your laptop configured the BIOS for a 800x600 LCD, too but hooked up a 1024x768 one. CU Christian -- Christian Zietz - CHZ-Soft - [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.chzsoft.com.ar/ PGP-Key auf Anfrage oder ueber http://www.keyserver.net/ ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
keymap
hi all, i have developed a keymap for my local language and it has been working well with XFree86 for about 4 months now. We want to commit it to the XFree86 code base now..how do i do that ? kindly help me out Regards Zaeem ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: XAA documentation
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/xaa/XAA.HOWTO Mark. On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Steven Staton wrote: Where is XAA documented? Google is unaware of it, which is a bad omen. Does documentation exist? ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
driver modules don't load on Solaris
Hi Developers, I'm trying to re-compile XFree on Solaris 9 x86, the build went fine and everthing seems to be up-to-date, but if I do try to start the server I always get the following errors in my log file: (II) Loading /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/drivers/ati_drv.o (EE) LoadModule: Module ati does not have a atiModuleData data object. (II) UnloadModule: ati (II) Unloading /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/drivers/ati_drv.o (EE) Failed to load module ati (invalid module, 0) (II) LoadModule: mouse (II) Loading /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/input/mouse_drv.o (EE) LoadModule: Module mouse does not have a mouseModuleData data object. (II) UnloadModule: mouse (II) Unloading /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/input/mouse_drv.o (EE) Failed to load module mouse (invalid module, 0) (EE) No drivers available. So far I've tried two different compilers Forte Developer 6 Update 2 and Sun Studio9, also tried two diffederent source trees 4.4.0 and also 4.4.99.11, without luck. Is there some special magic on Solaris to create driver modules which also load correctly ? Note: the XF86Config file was created with a pre-compiled XFree 4.4.0, and worked like a champ. Many many Thanks Klaus Ziegler ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
UseFBDev makes X-display in several wide bars, each 110 degree rotated, unusable
Hi, I observer something like stair-stepping problem with X server. But no characters are shifted but the whole display is somehow distorted. I track this dow to UseFBDev true. I have ATI Radeon 9200 card, 4.4.99.11 version of Xserver from cvs. THe problem appears regadless the radeon.o DRI module either from 2.4.28-pre2 or from within xc/.../linux/kernel/. Kernel contains statically linked radeonfb, as modules I have agpgart and radeon. IN principle, DRI has worked for me with 4.3.0, but once I have added ddc and/or enable I2C/I2O in the kernel, X started to exit on startup as it somehow couldn't initialize DDC. Anyway,, that's not important now, I want the latest version running first to compare speed. Here is the full log (I can share image snapshot of the display, if someone is interrested): Please Cc: me in replies. Thanks. Martin This is a pre-release version of XFree86, and is not supported in any way. Bugs may be reported to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and patches submitted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Before reporting bugs in pre-release versions, please check the latest version in the XFree86 CVS repository (http://www.XFree86.Org/cvs). XFree86 Version 4.4.99.11 Release Date: 12 August 2004 X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0 Build Operating System: Linux 2.4.28-pre2 i686 [ELF] Current Operating System: Linux vrapenec 2.4.28-pre2 #4 Fri Aug 27 04:06:05 MEST 2004 i686 Build Date: 27 August 2004 Changelog Date: 15 August 2004 Before reporting problems, check http://www.XFree86.Org/ to make sure that you have the latest version. Module Loader present Markers: (--) probed, (**) from config file, (==) default setting, (++) from command line, (!!) notice, (II) informational, (WW) warning, (EE) error, (NI) not implemented, (??) unknown. (==) Log file: /var/log/XFree86.0.log, Time: Fri Aug 27 04:26:24 2004 (==) Using config file: /etc/X11/XF86Config (==) ServerLayout Simple Layout (**) |--Screen Screen 1 (0) (**) | |--Monitor ASUS L3800C SXGA+ 15 (**) | |--Device ATI Radeon M7-P (**) |--Input Device Touchpad (**) |--Input Device USB-Mouse (**) |--Input Device Keyboard1 (**) Option AutoRepeat 500 30 (**) Option XkbCompat group_led (**) XKB: compat: group_led (**) Option XkbRules xfree86 (**) XKB: rules: xfree86 (**) Option XkbModel pc104 (**) XKB: model: pc104 (**) Option XkbLayout us (**) XKB: layout: us (**) Option XkbOptions grp:alt_shift_toggle (**) XKB: options: grp:alt_shift_toggle (==) Keyboard: CustomKeycode disabled (**) FontPath set to /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/local/,/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/misc/,/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi/:unscaled,/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi/:unscaled,/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/Type1/,/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi/,/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi/ (**) RgbPath set to /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/rgb (==) ModulePath set to /usr/X11R6/lib/modules (**) Option BlankTime 5 (**) Option StandbyTime 17 (**) Option SuspendTime 10 (**) Option OffTime 15 (WW) Open APM failed (/dev/apm_bios) (No such file or directory) (II) Module ABI versions: XFree86 ANSI C Emulation: 0.2 XFree86 Video Driver: 0.7 XFree86 XInput driver : 0.4 XFree86 Server Extension : 0.2 XFree86 Font Renderer : 0.4 (II) Loader running on linux (II) LoadModule: bitmap (II) Loading /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/fonts/libbitmap.a (II) Module bitmap: vendor=The XFree86 Project compiled for 4.4.99.11, module version = 1.0.0 Module class: XFree86 Font Renderer ABI class: XFree86 Font Renderer, version 0.4 (II) Loading font Bitmap (II) LoadModule: pcidata (II) Loading /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/libpcidata.a (II) Module pcidata: vendor=The XFree86 Project compiled for 4.4.99.11, module version = 1.0.0 ABI class: XFree86 Video Driver, version 0.7 (--) using VT number 7 (II) PCI: Probing config type using method 1 (II) PCI: Config type is 1 (II) PCI: stages = 0x03, oldVal1 = 0x, mode1Res1 = 0x8000 (II) PCI: PCI scan (all values are in hex) (II) PCI: 00:00:0: chip 8086,1a30 card 1043,1626 rev 04 class 06,00,00 hdr 00 (II) PCI: 00:01:0: chip 8086,1a31 card , rev 04 class 06,04,00 hdr 01 (II) PCI: 00:1d:0: chip 8086,2482 card 1043,1628 rev 02 class 0c,03,00 hdr 80 (II) PCI: 00:1d:1: chip 8086,2484 card 1043,1628 rev 02 class 0c,03,00 hdr 00 (II) PCI: 00:1e:0: chip 8086,2448 card , rev 42 class 06,04,00 hdr 01 (II) PCI: 00:1f:0: chip 8086,248c card , rev 02 class 06,01,00 hdr 80 (II) PCI: 00:1f:1: chip 8086,248a card 1043,1628 rev 02 class 01,01,8a hdr 00 (II) PCI: 00:1f:5: chip 8086,2485 card 1043,1583 rev 02 class 04,01,00 hdr 00 (II) PCI: 00:1f:6: chip 8086,2486 card 1043,1496 rev 02 class 07,03,00 hdr 00 (II) PCI: 01:00:0: chip 1002,4c57 card 1043,1622 rev 00 class 03,00,00 hdr 00 (II) PCI: 02:05:0: chip 10ec,8139 card 1043,1045 rev 10 class 02,00,00 hdr 00 (II) PCI: 02:07:0: chip 1180,0476 card 4000, rev a8 class 06,07,00 hdr 82 (II) PCI: 02:07:1: chip 1180,0476 card 4800, rev a8
Licensing Spirit ...
I understand there is a history of a war about the Xfree licensing. I honestly am not try to bait or troll with this post, so please give some consideration to this post ... I'm trying to figure out what the new xfree licensing means to *developers* (hence the post in this venue). There seem to be three types of scenarios that a developer might fall in to. #1 ... You are a hardware vendor wanting to provide an X11 windowing system to your boxes. You write a ddx to your hardware. #2 ... You are a software vendor wanting to provide an X11 windowing system to a platform. You write a ddx to your platform. #3 ... You are a solutions provider, and want to provide an X11 windowing system as a part of your solution. You redistribute an existing X11 distribution as a part of your solution. Examples would be ... Case #1 includes cray, sun, hp, etc ... they have traditionally used the xorg base and write a ddx to their hardware. The contributions back to the community are at their choosing. This may also include a video card manufacturer who wants to provide a driver for their proprietary card. Case #2 includes PC Xserver vendors (e.g. Hummingbird, WRQ, etc) ... they again use the xorg base and write a ddx to their platform. Again their contributions back are at their choosing. Case #3 includes the free OS providers (aka RedHat, etc) ... they distribute a built version of an Xserver and associated utilities. So, can someone lay down what the XFree licensing means to these three classes of developers? The Xorg license is pretty clear in all three cases (e.g. do what you will, don't claim you invented it). From what I can gather, much of the Xfree code also falls under the original MIT license (unless I'm mistaken and the Xorg folks relinguished their copyright to dix, mi, cfb, etc). Of course there is also much code in Xfree that is *not* a part of the Xorg tee (i.e. the xfree ddx tree). Then there is the programs included in both trees (xterm, xlogo, xdpyinfo, etc). And let's not forget the contribs (e.g. opengl from sgi with it's own license). I guess all I'm looking for is a spirit of the latest XFree86 license regarding the various components of Xfree86 (laywers and the courts will battle over the legaility of whatever license is written). Is this an accurate spirit then The Xlib (i.e xc/lib/*) is under MIT license (they hold copyright, so their license). The Programs (i.e xc/programs/xterm?xlogo?xinit etc) is under MIT license (they hold copyright, so their license). The DIX (i.e. xc.programs/Xserver/dix?mi?cfb?mfb?...) is under MIT license (they hold copyright, so their license). The XFree86 DDX family (i.e. xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86) is under the XFree86 license (whatever form the copyright holder feels free to invoke). The Xnest DDX (i.e. xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xnest) is under whoever wrote it's license (i dunno, duncare, but someone) The Contribs (i.e. xc/contrib/*) are under the license of the contributor ... If that is accurate then ... Developer #1 above can then use the Xfree86 code distro under an MIT license (unless they utilize the xfree86 ddx code, and then they fall under that license). Utilizing contribs places them under the contribs license as well. The above would be the same for developer #2. (i.e under the license of the ddx code you base from, and the contribs you choose to use). Developer #3 is in a murky situation to me ... but then again sort of the same. Again, I am not trying to bait or troll here, I just want an understanding of the spirit of the license XFree86 has gone to, and how that applies to the various components of the tree. Rob ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
