The descriptions for CONFIG_FB_MATROX_G450 and CONFIG_FB_MATROX_G100A
in drivers/video/Kconfig (current 2.6) are confusing: Both want to be
selected for Matrox G100, G200, G400 based video cards.
In the menu, it's
# G100/G200/G400/G450/G550 support (sets FB_MATROX_G100, FB_MATROX_G450)
# G100/G200/G400 support (sets FB_MATROX_G100)
# G400 second head support
where the second depends on the first _not_ being selected.
How about this instead?
# Gxxx (generic) (sets FB_MATROX_G100)
# G400 second head (depends FB_MATROX_GXXX, FB_MATROX_I2C)
(sets FB_MATROX_G450)
# G450/550 support (depends on FB_MATROX_GXXX)
Roger
On 5 Jun 04 at 13:40, Roger Luethi wrote:
> The descriptions for CONFIG_FB_MATROX_G450 and CONFIG_FB_MATROX_G100A
> in drivers/video/Kconfig (current 2.6) are confusing: Both want to be
> selected for Matrox G100, G200, G400 based video cards.
>
> In the menu, it's
>
> # G100/G200/G400/G450/G550 support (sets FB_MATROX_G100, FB_MATROX_G450)
> # G100/G200/G400 support (sets FB_MATROX_G100)
> # G400 second head support
>
> where the second depends on the first _not_ being selected.
>
> How about this instead?
>
> # Gxxx (generic) (sets FB_MATROX_G100)
> # G400 second head (depends FB_MATROX_GXXX, FB_MATROX_I2C)
> (sets FB_MATROX_G450)
> # G450/550 support (depends on FB_MATROX_GXXX)
Please no. It was this way in 2.4.x, and I was receiving at least
two complaints a week that their G450 does not work with their
system.
G400's second head has nothing to do with G450/G550, so there is
no reason why G400 second head should set FB_MATROX_G450...
If anything, then let's remove G100/G200/G400 choice completely,
making G450/G550 support unconditional.
Petr Vandrovec
On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 19:43:56 +0200, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> On 5 Jun 04 at 13:40, Roger Luethi wrote:
> > The descriptions for CONFIG_FB_MATROX_G450 and CONFIG_FB_MATROX_G100A
> > in drivers/video/Kconfig (current 2.6) are confusing: Both want to be
> > selected for Matrox G100, G200, G400 based video cards.
> >
> > In the menu, it's
> >
> > # G100/G200/G400/G450/G550 support (sets FB_MATROX_G100, FB_MATROX_G450)
> > # G100/G200/G400 support (sets FB_MATROX_G100)
> > # G400 second head support
> >
> > where the second depends on the first _not_ being selected.
> >
> > How about this instead?
> >
> > # Gxxx (generic) (sets FB_MATROX_G100)
> > # G400 second head (depends FB_MATROX_GXXX, FB_MATROX_I2C)
> > (sets FB_MATROX_G450)
> > # G450/550 support (depends on FB_MATROX_GXXX)
>
> Please no. It was this way in 2.4.x, and I was receiving at least
> two complaints a week that their G450 does not work with their
> system.
>
> G400's second head has nothing to do with G450/G550, so there is
> no reason why G400 second head should set FB_MATROX_G450...
Sorry, typo. Should have been:
# Gxxx (generic) (sets FB_MATROX_G100)
# G400 second head (depends FB_MATROX_GXXX, FB_MATROX_I2C)
# (sets FB_MATROX_MAVEN)
# G450/550 support (depends on FB_MATROX_GXXX)
# (sets FB_MATROX_G450)
> If anything, then let's remove G100/G200/G400 choice completely,
> making G450/G550 support unconditional.
That's fine with me, too. As far as I am concerned, you can throw the
whole Matrox G??? bunch together :-). It's just the current presentation
that is confusing.
Roger