On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 10:13 +0800, Kan-Ru Chen wrote:
> > Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
> > Is there away to tell the kernel to never activate efifb or vesafb and
> > load i915 form initrd instead ? Or is there a way to unbind it from
> > all outputs before loading inteldrmfb ? I'd prefer to use debian
> > kernels than rebuild them at each upgrade. And I guess that compiling
> > in all framebuffers in a distribution kernel is a little contrary to
> > the idea of initrd, keeping the kernel small and all that.
> Actually the fb subsystem was trying to unbind efifb but failed because
> the stock kernel was built without CONFIG_VT_HW_CONSOLE_BINDING.
> config VT_HW_CONSOLE_BINDING
> bool "Support for binding and unbinding console drivers"
> depends on HW_CONSOLE
> default n
> The virtual terminal is the device that interacts with the physical
> terminal through console drivers. On these systems, at least one
> console driver is loaded. In other configurations, additional console
> drivers may be enabled, such as the framebuffer console. If more than
> 1 console driver is enabled, setting this to 'y' will allow you to
> select the console driver that will serve as the backend for the
> virtual terminals.
> See <file
ocumentation/console/console.txt> for more
> information. For framebuffer console users, please refer to
> After enabling this, efifb can be successfully unbind and inteldrmfb is
> [ 0.942688] fb0: EFI VGA frame buffer device
> [ 22.596877] fb: conflicting fb hw usage inteldrmfb vs EFI VGA - removing generic driver
> [ 22.597101] fb0: inteldrmfb frame buffer device
Interesting, has this been reported to the kernel package maintainers?
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.vmware.com
Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org