On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 17:06 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 13:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 16:28 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > > > On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 13:09 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > > > As things stand, we don't really have a fallback graphics method for > > > > UEFI. > > > > > > False. > > > > In what way? That was the impression I was getting from the discussions > > in the bugs. If we have one, what is it? How should it be triggered? > > In https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977816#c7 you say: > > > fortuitously, though, since the modern X drivers for the major cards - > > nouveau, radeon, intel - all require KMS, simply passing 'nomodeset' > > has the effect we want: you wind up getting vesa as the fallback > > driver, because the main driver refuses to load without KMS. > > That _is_ the fallback. And, as I said in the other fork of this > thread, you ought to get the fbdev driver in this scenario. > > If that doesn't _work_, then that's merely a bug. But it ought to. We probably need to test it more, but the impression I was getting from the bug is that we don't necessarily want to simply use 'nomodeset' as the 'standard fallback path' for UEFI, that there may be UEFI systems on which we might want to do KMS but use a generic driver, for instance...is that incorrect? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
