Re: [vdr] [FRC] Why are patches for framebuffer not needed anymore in release 0.1.0?

2009-03-29 Thread Thomas Hilber
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 12:21:18AM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: you released version 0.1.0 [1]. Could you please explain to me, why the framebuffer patches (intelfb, radeonfb) are not needed anymore? since version 0.1.0 you will not need DRM from GIT anymore. You just can use DRM as provided by

Re: [vdr] [FRC] Why are patches for framebuffer not needed anymore in release 0.1.0?

2009-03-29 Thread Pasi Kärkkäinen
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:34:30AM +0200, Thomas Hilber wrote: On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 12:21:18AM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: you released version 0.1.0 [1]. Could you please explain to me, why the framebuffer patches (intelfb, radeonfb) are not needed anymore? since version 0.1.0 you will

Re: [vdr] [FRC] Why are patches for framebuffer not needed anymore in release 0.1.0?

2009-03-29 Thread Thomas Hilber
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 08:32:21PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: Does Lenny have some extra patches in the kernel, or does it work with all vanilla 2.6.26+ kernels? for sure has Lenny some extra patches in the kernel. But probably they don't interfere with the vga-sync-fields (FRC) patch. I

[vdr] [FRC] Why are patches for framebuffer not needed anymore in release 0.1.0?

2009-03-28 Thread Paul Menzel
Dear Thomas, you released version 0.1.0 [1]. Could you please explain to me, why the framebuffer patches (intelfb, radeonfb) are not needed anymore? Thanks a lot, Paul [1] http://lowbyte.de/vga-sync-fields/vga-sync-fields/ signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter