From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:52:30 -0500 From: jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] NeoMagic MagicGraph 128 (NM2070, 10c8/0001) In-Reply-To: <16311.1105224958@piper.nectar.cs.cmu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2a4d708c-eace-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Looking at the XFree86 code (which is is the only documentation available, I believe), you see the 2070 is the odd man out, requiring extra fiddling. I suspect that whoever did the original code thought it wasn't worth the effort for what looks like the oldest chip especially if there was no hardware on hand to test it on. It's probably not hard to add, start with .../xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/neomagic/neo_driver.c and just step through it looking for the string "2070" and comparing what's there to what's in /sys/src/cmd/aux/vga/neomagic.c and /sys/src/9/pc/vganeomagic.c. It looks like you may have to alter the latter of those for acceleration. --jim On Sat Jan 8 17:57:01 EST 2005, davide+p9@cs.cmu.edu wrote: > vgadb and aux/vga explicitly rejects this chip as unsupported. > > Sure enough, if add the "appropriate" case statements there and > in the kernel I get a screen full of hash. > > Any hints on what's wrong? Does whoever declared the chip > unsupported remember whether there was a known problem which > was the obstacle, or just a lack of debugging cycles? > > Dave Eckhardt