On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 22:39:16 -0400 (EDT), Stephen Powell wrote: > On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 14:32:43 -0400 (EDT), Sven Joachim wrote: >> On 2011-04-24 22:19 +0200, Stephen Powell wrote: >>> ... >>> The same bug can be reproduced by using the following kernel boot parameter: >>> >>> video=VGA-1:1024x768@87i >>> >>> ... >> >> Please add these findings to the bug report. > > I will. But I want to do some more experimenting first. > I rolled up my sleeves and dug in to the kernel source code today. > One thing I discovered is that the vertical refresh rate for an interlaced > mode needs to be specified as the full-frame rate, not the half-frame rate. > Therefore, the corrected version of the above video boot parameter is > > video=VGA-1:1024x768@43i > > I tried that and got output for the first time. But it was strange-looking > output. Instead of the expected 128-column by 48-row frame buffer console > I got a 128-column by 24-row console, occupying the lower half of the screen > only. Weird. But at least I got output. I'm digging deeper and deeper into > the source code. Maybe I'll find something.
I found the bug! I'm working on a patch. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1655914431.216837.1303945980165.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
