On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 05:24:44PM +0000, James Simmons wrote:
>
>
> > > > console doesn't show a single pixel.
> > >
> > > :-( Can you post your .config file.
> >
> > Attached.
>
> Hm. Strange. It should work. Can you get serial console working?
Forgot to mention, I've seen message:
fbcon_setup: No support for fontwidth 8
in /var/log/dmesg.
I found this printk() in fbcon_setup(), but i can't even imagine
why it happens.
Sorry for not providing full info, but when i wrote first letter
my head was full of gory thoughts about visws legacy irq handling :(
I can post complete log tomorrow.
> > I did some changes to sgivwfb.c to make it compilable, patch attached.
> > Can you take a look at it ?
>
> Applied your patch to the BK tree.
Good.
> > > I will be posting a new fbdev patch today against 2.5.48 today. Giev it a
> > > try.
> >
> > Didn't see proposed fbdev patch yet :(
>
> Sorry about that. You are not the only one that has asked me. Also I
> keep getting lots of error reports about drivers being broken. The problem
> is having enough time. For example I haven't found the time to create this
> patch. This brings up a serious point which I have been wrestling with. The
> framebuffer layer has been broken for a long time durning the 2.5.X cycle
> The problem is both maintainers of this subsystem, Geert and I, both have
> very little time to work on it. For both of us we don't work on the
> framebuffer code for a living. I work with wireless networking cards. I
> work 8 hours a day on networking code and travel 3 hours total every day
> to work. Including eating a sleeping and I have at most 1 to 2 hours a day
> to work on the framebuffer stuff. Weekends I have to do other survial
> things like buy food. So the framebuffer developement has gone at a
> snail pace and will continue to do so unless things change. I estimate
> about 20+ more versions before the framebuffer layer properly works.
> It pains me that this is happening. I really enjoy working on the
> framebuffer and console layer. So I have been thinking about what to
> do ? One which is the most likely is to step down from maintaintership
> and hope someone else who can devote there full time and energy to it
> can take over. Will someone else take over? I seriously doubt it. We all
> have to make a living and that means working on things the linux industry
> cares about which is only server stuff. So I except the framebuffer layer
> will go into serious code decay. So the best situtation which I except to
> happen is that I finish as much as I can for the fbdev layer and then
> step down.
> I have tried to look for work locallly (can't really affored to move
> cross country very few years) relating to the framebuffer layer. In my
> search I only found one company that seemed interested in this developement,
> strangeberry (http://www.strangeberry.com). I sent them my resume but
> never heard from them. As for funding I serious doubt that would happen
> since it isn't server related. The reality is for proper maintiance of any
> subsystem you need people hired to solely work to keep it going.
> Unfortunely the framebuffer layer is one of those few ones that doesn't
> have that.
I understand this situation perfectly, looks like it's almost common for
developers working in "not so importatnt for servers" subsystems :(
-- Andrey Panin | Embedded systems software developer pazke@orbita1.ru | PGP key: wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 22:00:39 EST