[gentoo-user] Re: uvesafb - does it require use of initramfs/initrd?
Harry Putnam wrote: Nikos Chantziaras rea...@arcor.de writes: uvesafb also works on non-x86 system. It has one drawback though: it doesn't switch to graphical mode right from the start like vesafb does. Instead, you get the initial kernel messages in text mode and need to wait for graphics to kick-in. With vesafb, you're in graphics mode right from the start. That pretty much makes uvesafb a poor choice for bootsplash configurations. If you select both will that lead to problems? No, but you can only use one. Could you invoke uvesafb from console session one you've booted? Probably. Didn't try though.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: uvesafb - does it require use of initramfs/initrd?
On Sunday 18 January 2009 00:25:49 »Q« wrote: I also have a 1280x800 screen and uvesafb works for me without distortion with this kernel video option in grub.conf: video=uvesafb:1280x800-32,mtrr:3,ywrap Do you have that resolution available in your BIOS? I read somewhere that uvesafb can only use what it finds in the BIOS; in my case there is no such resolution. Maybe BIOS writers assume that nobody uses a text screen these days. On Sunday 18 January 2009 03:25:33 Paul Hartman wrote: In Konsole I'm using Fixed [ETL] 10pt, whatever that is, maybe it's the default, I can't remember, but it's nice. It isn't the default (it can't be as I hadn't seen it before), but it's good that we have a choice. Nowadays I fear I shall have to stick to something a bit larger ;-( -- Rgds Peter
[gentoo-user] Re: uvesafb - does it require use of initramfs/initrd?
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 10:43:19 + Peter Humphrey pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote: On Sunday 18 January 2009 00:25:49 »Q« wrote: I also have a 1280x800 screen and uvesafb works for me without distortion with this kernel video option in grub.conf: video=uvesafb:1280x800-32,mtrr:3,ywrap Do you have that resolution available in your BIOS? I read somewhere that uvesafb can only use what it finds in the BIOS; in my case there is no such resolution. Maybe BIOS writers assume that nobody uses a text screen these days. In the BIOS for my mainboard, there doesn't seem to be any mention of resolutions. But my video BIOS does support that resolution, at least according to what shows up in /sys/class/graphics/fb0/modes and /sys/bus/platform/drivers/uvesafb/uvesafb.0/vbe_modes And yeah, in the Caveats and Limitations section of linux/Documentation/fb/uvesafb.txt , spock does make it clear that uvesafb can only use modes supported by the video BIOS. I don't think I could live with that -- I'd go back to vesafb if it didn't WFM. -- »Q« Kleeneness is next to Gödelness.
[gentoo-user] Re: uvesafb - does it require use of initramfs/initrd?
rea...@newsguy.com wrote: Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com writes: I'm ashamed to admit I made the most basic mistake. I compiled uvesafb as a module. Oops! Compiled it as Y instead of M and now I have a pair of Tux sitting atop my kernel boot screen and no more 80x25 horror. :) Is there some difference in uvesafb and vesafb? I've always just ignored the uvesafb choice and used plain vesafb. I just assumed from the name of it and the menuconfig help on it that it was something only usable in `userspace'. I took that to mean after bootup.. something you'd do from the command line. Anyone here that can explain what the difference is. uvesafb also works on non-x86 system. It has one drawback though: it doesn't switch to graphical mode right from the start like vesafb does. Instead, you get the initial kernel messages in text mode and need to wait for graphics to kick-in. With vesafb, you're in graphics mode right from the start. That pretty much makes uvesafb a poor choice for bootsplash configurations.
[gentoo-user] Re: uvesafb - does it require use of initramfs/initrd?
Nikos Chantziaras rea...@arcor.de writes: rea...@newsguy.com wrote: Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com writes: I'm ashamed to admit I made the most basic mistake. I compiled uvesafb as a module. Oops! Compiled it as Y instead of M and now I have a pair of Tux sitting atop my kernel boot screen and no more 80x25 horror. :) Is there some difference in uvesafb and vesafb? I've always just ignored the uvesafb choice and used plain vesafb. I just assumed from the name of it and the menuconfig help on it that it was something only usable in `userspace'. I took that to mean after bootup.. something you'd do from the command line. Anyone here that can explain what the difference is. uvesafb also works on non-x86 system. It has one drawback though: it doesn't switch to graphical mode right from the start like vesafb does. Instead, you get the initial kernel messages in text mode and need to wait for graphics to kick-in. With vesafb, you're in graphics mode right from the start. That pretty much makes uvesafb a poor choice for bootsplash configurations. If you select both will that lead to problems? Could you invoke uvesafb from console session one you've booted?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: uvesafb - does it require use of initramfs/initrd?
On Friday 16 January 2009 19:27:53 Paul Hartman wrote: Now I just need to find a good consolefont that doesn't look squished in 16:9 aspect ratio. Right now I'm using ter-112n (from terminus-fonts) and it's pretty good but still a little too wide for my taste. Thanks for the pointer to that rather nice font. I think the problem, if yours is like mine in having a 1280x800 screen, is that the frame buffer simply takes a standard 4:3 screen resolution and stretches it to fit. Thus I have a distorted 1024x768 console. The only way to get a narrower font seems to be to design one six or seven pixels wide instead of the usual eight. Or at least, to design a tall, narrow font that would look right when stretched in this way. I too would like to know if someone discovers one like this. -- Rgds Peter
[gentoo-user] Re: uvesafb - does it require use of initramfs/initrd?
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:32:38 + Peter Humphrey pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote: On Friday 16 January 2009 19:27:53 Paul Hartman wrote: Now I just need to find a good consolefont that doesn't look squished in 16:9 aspect ratio. Right now I'm using ter-112n (from terminus-fonts) and it's pretty good but still a little too wide for my taste. Thanks for the pointer to that rather nice font. I think the problem, if yours is like mine in having a 1280x800 screen, is that the frame buffer simply takes a standard 4:3 screen resolution and stretches it to fit. Thus I have a distorted 1024x768 console. I also have a 1280x800 screen and uvesafb works for me without distortion with this kernel video option in grub.conf: video=uvesafb:1280x800-32,mtrr:3,ywrap -- »Q« Kleeneness is next to Gödelness.
[gentoo-user] Re: uvesafb - does it require use of initramfs/initrd?
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:42:30 -0600 Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Does anyone here use uvesafb? I followed the instructions to install uvesafb from this page: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spock/projects/uvesafb/ However, it does not work. Is it required to use initrd in order to use uvesafb? (because I don't use it...) the 80x25 looks absolutely horrible and I'd love to have something usable without needing to be in X. I have an nvidia geforce 9600GT card using the latest nvidia-drivers, and am on amd64 if it matters. I'm ashamed to admit I made the most basic mistake. I compiled uvesafb as a module. Oops! Compiled it as Y instead of M and now I have a pair of Tux sitting atop my kernel boot screen and no more 80x25 horror. :) You mean you are now successfully using uvesafb *without* an initrd or initramfs? Spock's site says you need v86d, and I don't know how else to get it. If I boot a kernel without it, uvesafb doesn't work for me. -- »Q« Kleeneness is next to Gödelness.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: uvesafb - does it require use of initramfs/initrd?
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM, »Q« boxc...@gmx.net wrote: On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:42:30 -0600 Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Does anyone here use uvesafb? I followed the instructions to install uvesafb from this page: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spock/projects/uvesafb/ However, it does not work. Is it required to use initrd in order to use uvesafb? (because I don't use it...) the 80x25 looks absolutely horrible and I'd love to have something usable without needing to be in X. I have an nvidia geforce 9600GT card using the latest nvidia-drivers, and am on amd64 if it matters. I'm ashamed to admit I made the most basic mistake. I compiled uvesafb as a module. Oops! Compiled it as Y instead of M and now I have a pair of Tux sitting atop my kernel boot screen and no more 80x25 horror. :) You mean you are now successfully using uvesafb *without* an initrd or initramfs? Spock's site says you need v86d, and I don't know how else to get it. If I boot a kernel without it, uvesafb doesn't work for me. Well you need the initramfs stuff is configured in the kernel as stated in the instructions at his website, but I'm not (not have I ever) used the initrd. My grub config (possibly wordwrapped by gmail) is: default 0 timeout 10 splashimage=(hd0,0)/grub/splash.xpm.gz title=Gentoo Linux 2.6 root (hd0,0) kernel /vmlinuz root=/dev/sda5 doscsi dodmraid nmi_watchdog=0 rootfstype=ext4 video=uvesafb:1280x720p-59,mtrr:3,ywrap
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: uvesafb - does it require use of initramfs/initrd?
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Peter Humphrey pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote: On Friday 16 January 2009 19:27:53 Paul Hartman wrote: Now I just need to find a good consolefont that doesn't look squished in 16:9 aspect ratio. Right now I'm using ter-112n (from terminus-fonts) and it's pretty good but still a little too wide for my taste. Thanks for the pointer to that rather nice font. I think the problem, if yours is like mine in having a 1280x800 screen, is that the frame buffer simply takes a standard 4:3 screen resolution and stretches it to fit. Thus I have a distorted 1024x768 console. The only way to get a narrower font seems to be to design one six or seven pixels wide instead of the usual eight. Or at least, to design a tall, narrow font that would look right when stretched in this way. I too would like to know if someone discovers one like this. Well, my framebuffer is 1280x720 which is proper 16:9 aspect ratio for my monitor, but the consolefonts I've tried just don't seem quite my flavor. I want a small font (so I can fit a lot of characters in the screen) without being short, by which I mean I'd rather have an 8x16 font than an 8x8. In Konsole I'm using Fixed [ETL] 10pt, whatever that is, maybe it's the default, I can't remember, but it's nice.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: uvesafb - does it require use of initramfs/initrd?
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM, »Q« boxc...@gmx.net wrote: On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:42:30 -0600 Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Does anyone here use uvesafb? I followed the instructions to install uvesafb from this page: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spock/projects/uvesafb/ However, it does not work. Is it required to use initrd in order to use uvesafb? (because I don't use it...) the 80x25 looks absolutely horrible and I'd love to have something usable without needing to be in X. I have an nvidia geforce 9600GT card using the latest nvidia-drivers, and am on amd64 if it matters. I'm ashamed to admit I made the most basic mistake. I compiled uvesafb as a module. Oops! Compiled it as Y instead of M and now I have a pair of Tux sitting atop my kernel boot screen and no more 80x25 horror. :) You mean you are now successfully using uvesafb *without* an initrd or initramfs? Spock's site says you need v86d, and I don't know how else to get it. If I boot a kernel without it, uvesafb doesn't work for me. Well you need the initramfs stuff is configured in the kernel as stated in the instructions at his website, but I'm not (not have I ever) used the initrd. My grub config (possibly wordwrapped by gmail) is: default 0 timeout 10 splashimage=(hd0,0)/grub/splash.xpm.gz title=Gentoo Linux 2.6 root (hd0,0) kernel /vmlinuz root=/dev/sda5 doscsi dodmraid nmi_watchdog=0 rootfstype=ext4 video=uvesafb:1280x720p-59,mtrr:3,ywrap I forgot to specify: the kernel setting CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE=/usr/share/v86d/initramfs compiled v86d into the kernel, so it doesn't need to execute the /sbin/v86d
[gentoo-user] Re: uvesafb - does it require use of initramfs/initrd?
In 58965d8a0901171927q12cac290ocead4eb8409d9...@mail.gmail.com, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM, »Q« boxc...@gmx.net wrote: On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:42:30 -0600 You mean you are now successfully using uvesafb *without* an initrd or initramfs? Spock's site says you need v86d, and I don't know how else to get it. If I boot a kernel without it, uvesafb doesn't work for me. Well you need the initramfs stuff is configured in the kernel as stated in the instructions at his website, but I'm not (not have I ever) used the initrd. [snip] I forgot to specify: the kernel setting CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE=/usr/share/v86d/initramfs compiled v86d into the kernel, so it doesn't need to execute the /sbin/v86d Ah, thanks, I see. I think my initial confusion was due to my misreading of your original post. I do it the same way you do, compiling it into the kernel, both on Gentoo and Slackware. -- »Q« Kleeneness is next to Gödelness.
[gentoo-user] Re: uvesafb - does it require use of initramfs/initrd?
Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com writes: I'm ashamed to admit I made the most basic mistake. I compiled uvesafb as a module. Oops! Compiled it as Y instead of M and now I have a pair of Tux sitting atop my kernel boot screen and no more 80x25 horror. :) Is there some difference in uvesafb and vesafb? I've always just ignored the uvesafb choice and used plain vesafb. I just assumed from the name of it and the menuconfig help on it that it was something only usable in `userspace'. I took that to mean after bootup.. something you'd do from the command line. Anyone here that can explain what the difference is.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: uvesafb - does it require use of initramfs/initrd?
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:33 PM, rea...@newsguy.com wrote: Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com writes: I'm ashamed to admit I made the most basic mistake. I compiled uvesafb as a module. Oops! Compiled it as Y instead of M and now I have a pair of Tux sitting atop my kernel boot screen and no more 80x25 horror. :) Is there some difference in uvesafb and vesafb? I've always just ignored the uvesafb choice and used plain vesafb. I just assumed from the name of it and the menuconfig help on it that it was something only usable in `userspace'. I took that to mean after bootup.. something you'd do from the command line. Anyone here that can explain what the difference is. According to the website: uvesafb is a generic framebuffer driver for Linux systems and the direct successor of vesafb-tng. Its main features are: * works on non-x86 systems, * the Video BIOS code is run in userspace by a helper application, * can be compiled as a module, * adjustable refresh rates with VBE 3.0-compliant graphic cards. It also enumerates all of the supported modes when you cat /sys/class/graphics/fb0/modes which is handy... no need for vga=0x382 or whatever. They are nice human-readable modes lik 1024x768-60 or whatever. You can also disable the framebuffer entirely or change modes from the commandline once the system is up and running (maybe vesafb lets you do that too, I'm not sure). Now I just need to find a good consolefont that doesn't look squished in 16:9 aspect ratio. Right now I'm using ter-112n (from terminus-fonts) and it's pretty good but still a little too wide for my taste. Paul
[gentoo-user] Re: uvesafb - does it require use of initramfs/initrd?
Paul Hartman wrote: Hi, Does anyone here use uvesafb? I followed the instructions to install uvesafb from this page: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spock/projects/uvesafb/ However, it does not work. Is it required to use initrd in order to use uvesafb? (because I don't use it...) the 80x25 looks absolutely horrible and I'd love to have something usable without needing to be in X. I have an nvidia geforce 9600GT card using the latest nvidia-drivers, and am on amd64 if it matters. You can use vesafb instead of uvesafb.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: uvesafb - does it require use of initramfs/initrd?
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Nikos Chantziaras rea...@arcor.de wrote: Paul Hartman wrote: Hi, Does anyone here use uvesafb? I followed the instructions to install uvesafb from this page: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spock/projects/uvesafb/ However, it does not work. Is it required to use initrd in order to use uvesafb? (because I don't use it...) the 80x25 looks absolutely horrible and I'd love to have something usable without needing to be in X. I have an nvidia geforce 9600GT card using the latest nvidia-drivers, and am on amd64 if it matters. You can use vesafb instead of uvesafb. I'll try it. I thought there was some conflict between the other framebuffers and nvidia drivers, so i never even attempted the other in-kernel FBs.
[gentoo-user] Re: uvesafb - does it require use of initramfs/initrd?
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Does anyone here use uvesafb? I followed the instructions to install uvesafb from this page: http://dev.gentoo.org/~spock/projects/uvesafb/ However, it does not work. Is it required to use initrd in order to use uvesafb? (because I don't use it...) the 80x25 looks absolutely horrible and I'd love to have something usable without needing to be in X. I have an nvidia geforce 9600GT card using the latest nvidia-drivers, and am on amd64 if it matters. Thanks, Paul I'm ashamed to admit I made the most basic mistake. I compiled uvesafb as a module. Oops! Compiled it as Y instead of M and now I have a pair of Tux sitting atop my kernel boot screen and no more 80x25 horror. :) Thanks, Paul
