"Pierre Asselin" <pa@xxxxxxxxx> writes: [...] > [ 3.343433] sysfb: si->rsvd_size 0 si->rsvd_pos 0 Thanks for confirming this. I was expected that as mentioned since it was the only reasonable explanation for your problem. [...] > What if _depth is low but the rsvd_ are right ? > Then _width and _linelength would be inconsistent with _depth but > consistent with the recomputed bits_per_pixel ? How many ways can the > firmware lie ? > I don't know. But in your case the firmware is not reporting the mode correctly since it is setting a framebuffer of 1024x768 and xRGB but is not reporting si->rsvd_size=8 and si->rsvd_pos=24 as it should. One option is to have a DMI match table similar to what we already have for EFI machines in drivers/firmware/efi/sysfb_efi.c but also for BIOS. The question then is if we can trust other systems to report a proper rsvd_size and rsvd_pos... > We need more testers, don't we ? > It's tricky, yes. -- Best regards, Javier Martinez Canillas Core Platforms Red Hat
