| Summary: | GeForce GT 430 detected as vesa (using non-native resolution) whilst it works with nouveau (using native resolution) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Mageia | Reporter: | JaromÃr CápÃk <tavvva> |
| Component: | RPM Packages | Assignee: | Thierry Vignaud <thierry.vignaud> |
| Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | Normal | CC: | anssi.hannula, marja11 |
| Version: | 1 | Keywords: | NEEDINFO |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | i586 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Source RPM: | ldetect-lst-0.1.291-9.mga1.src.rpm | CVE: | |
| Status comment: | |||
| Attachments: |
dmesg
Xorg.0.log |
||
|
Description
JaromÃr CápÃk
2012-02-21 22:14:16 CET
Created attachment 1616 [details]
dmesg
Created attachment 1617 [details]
Xorg.0.log
JaromÃr CápÃk
2012-02-21 22:17:17 CET
CC:
(none) =>
anssi.hannula
Manuel Hiebel
2012-02-22 00:24:18 CET
Assignee:
bugsquad =>
thierry.vignaud What's the result of "lspcidrake -v | egrep 'Card|VGA'" ? Keywords:
(none) =>
NEEDINFO Thierry, his card is correctly assigned to the GeForce 400+ group. However, those cards were set to use vesa instead of nouveau in MGA1 (IIRC I wasn't sure the support worked correctly). In hindsight, assigning them to nouveau instead would've probably been better, but I guess we don't want to change all of them now from vesa to nouveau, as there could be regressions... Or do you think we should do that (vesa is quite bad with modern displays, already)? If not, I guess we could change his single card from vesa to nouveau. We could do the later. (In reply to comment #3) > What's the result of "lspcidrake -v | egrep 'Card|VGA'" ? (In reply to comment #4) > Thierry, his card is correctly assigned to the GeForce 400+ group. However, > those cards were set to use vesa instead of nouveau in MGA1 (IIRC I wasn't sure > the support worked correctly). In hindsight, assigning them to nouveau instead > would've probably been better, but I guess we don't want to change all of them > now from vesa to nouveau, as there could be regressions... Or do you think we > should do that (vesa is quite bad with modern displays, already)? > > If not, I guess we could change his single card from vesa to nouveau. (In reply to comment #5) > We could do the later. @ Thierry I'm not sure the "lspcidrake -v | egrep 'Card|VGA'" output is still needed. Is it? CC:
(none) =>
marja11 @ Jaromir No reply from Thierry, but since this is nearly no work: please provide the output of lspcidrake -v | egrep 'Card|VGA' This is not needed anymore. For the record, this is fixed in mga2 Hi Thierry. I know it's fixed in mga2, but we wanted the change in mga1 (mga2 is not production ready yet). (In reply to comment #9) > Hi Thierry. > > I know it's fixed in mga2, but we wanted the change in mga1 (mga2 is not > production ready yet). It is now. Does it work for you? Hi Marja. 'Released' doesn't mean 'production ready'. I knew very well that it works correctly in mga2 when I was submitting this bug. This bug was intended as a request for back propagation to mga1 and it's still valid. I could fix it by myself, but this needs to be accepted by Thierry first, because he's the ldetect-lst maintainer and I don't wanna go against his intentions. Regards, Jaromir. You can change it in ldetect-lst branch for mga1 and submit an update package but I am not sure it's worth it Please look at the bottom of this mail to see whether you're the assignee of this bug, if you don't already know whether you are. If you're the assignee: We'd like to know for sure whether this bug was assigned correctly. Please change status to ASSIGNED if it is, or put OK on the whiteboard instead. If you don't have a clue and don't see a way to find out, then please put NEEDHELP on the whiteboard. Please assign back to Bug Squad or to the correct person to solve this bug if we were wrong to assign it to you, and explain why. Thanks :) **************************** @ the reporter and persons in the cc of this bug: If you have any new information that wasn't given before (like this bug being valid for another version of Mageia, too, or it being solved) please tell us. @ the reporter of this bug If you didn't reply yet to a request for more information, please do so within two weeks from now. Thanks all :-D This message is a reminder that Mageia 1 is nearing its end of life. In approximately 25 days from now, Mageia will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Mageia 1. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX (EOL) if it remains open with a Mageia 'version' of '1'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Mageia version prior to Mageia 1's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Mageia 1 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Mageia, you are encouraged to click on "Version" and change it against that version of Mageia. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Mageia release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. -- Mageia Bugsquad Mageia 1 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on ''1st December''. Mageia 1 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Mageia please feel free to click on "Version" change it against that version of Mageia and reopen this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. -- Mageia Bugsquad Status:
NEW =>
RESOLVED |