[Openchrome-users] regressions from svn 462:500

[Forest Bond]

Hi,

Thanks for your response, Benno.

On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 10:12:35PM +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> Forest Bond wrote:
> > I guess I don't know the low-level interactions well enough; is
> > it not possible that the VGA BIOS is involving itself in the
> > situation, even if it was not explicitly asked to do so?
>
> You mean Linux does not take full control of the machine?  No, that 
> would be silly.  The BIOS only gets used when it is explicitly 
> called.

I'm willing to belive that that is correct, although I'm not sure if I trust
that hardware implementations respect this.  Am I only demonstrating my
ignorance?

> > In any case, certainly the BIOS plays a role at boot time, and
> > some degree of initialization may be going on there that could
> > have impact, right?
> 
> Sure.  But if the openchrome driver initializes the chip correctly, 
> it shouldn't matter what the boot process has done with it.

Okay, so incorrect BIOS initialization that is not compensated for by openChrome
should be considered a bug in openChrome?

> > "Fine", I thought, "I'll use xrandr in the .xinitrc to force it
> > to use the right mode and virtual size.  Lo and behold,
> > everything works correctly.
> 
> So it now works as you want it to?  No issues remain?

That was true with my Samsung 42" plasma.

But when my remote associate tried this with his display (Panasonic 42" plasma),
this was not true.  This is truly unfortunate.

What do you think would be a good next step?

Thanks,
Forest
-- 
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://wiki.openchrome.org/pipermail/openchrome-users/attachments/20080120/3355dc70/attachment.bin