Here are 2 patches...
The "vesafb.txt.diff" removes duplicate text in the documentation...
The "vesafb.c.diff" changes the following:
- it adds "* 2" to the video_size calculation to remap enough memory
to do double buffering
- to make sure that our double buffering calculation does not remap
more memory than old cards actually have it uses the "old" code:
if video_size > (screen_info.lfb_size * 65536)
video_size = screen_info.lfb_size * 65536;
- and last but not least it changes my override to work both ways,
so that the user can specify less or more memory to be remapped
I earlier got a comment that this double buffering thing is not needed,
but IMHO there will always be cards out there that are to new, so they
dont have driver support (yet), or they are too "weird" so the only thing
the user has to rely on is the vesafb driver, and I like the idea to get
atleast this support "out of the box"...
Best Regards
Thomas
AARGH...
I forgot to rediff...,
but since it seems to break the bootsplash,
the vesafb.c.diff needs more work...
but the vesafb.txt.diff should be applied...
"Thomas Backlund" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here are 2 patches...
>
> The "vesafb.txt.diff" removes duplicate text in the documentation...
>
> The "vesafb.c.diff" changes the following:
> - it adds "* 2" to the video_size calculation to remap enough memory
> to do double buffering
>
> - to make sure that our double buffering calculation does not remap
> more memory than old cards actually have it uses the "old" code:
>
> if video_size > (screen_info.lfb_size * 65536)
> video_size = screen_info.lfb_size * 65536;
>
Stupid typos... :-(
I am using:
if (video_size > (screen_info.lfb_size * 65536))
video_size = screen_info.lfb_size * 65536;
> - and last but not least it changes my override to work both ways,
> so that the user can specify less or more memory to be remapped
>
>
> I earlier got a comment that this double buffering thing is not needed,
> but IMHO there will always be cards out there that are to new, so they
> dont have driver support (yet), or they are too "weird" so the only thing
> the user has to rely on is the vesafb driver, and I like the idea to get
> atleast this support "out of the box"...
>
Best Regards
Thomas