Both Xati and Xvesa say they support 1400x1050, but only Xvesa will actually work with it specified. How would I go about "loading the radeon framebuffer driver"? <div>On 6/20/05, Eric Anholt <<a href="mailto:eta@lclark.edu">eta@lclark.edu</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Sun, 2005-06-19 at 11:27 -0400, Anthony Romano wrote: > So I normally run kdrive (Xvesa) because Xati would never scale up to > 1400x1050 for me (my TFT's native res). However, when looking through > the kdrive changelog I saw this from last year > > 2004-07-22 Keith Packard <<a href="mailto:keithp@keithp.com">keithp@keithp.com</a>> > > reviewed by: <delete if not using a buddy> > > * hw/kdrive/ati/ati.c: (ATISetOffscreen), (ATISetPitch), > > (ATIRandRSetConfig), (ATIPreserve), (ATIRestore), (ATIEnable): > * hw/kdrive/ati/ati.h: > * hw/kdrive/ati/ati_cursor.c: (RadeonLoadCursor), > (ATIUnloadCursor), (ATICursorEnable): > * hw/kdrive/ati/ati_reg.h: > > Correct pitch so that accelerator can run on 1400x1050 screens. > Add a few more register sets for cursors. > > Is there any way to get Xati running at 1400x1050? When I try to set > it with the -screen flag it defaults to 800x600. Thanks. Which resolution ends up getting chosen when you specify a certain width/height is determined by the list of modes VESA offers you. If you're using VESA, I would recommend loading the radeon framebuffer driver. (And if you're using framebuffer, maybe try removing it and letting kdrive's VESA support take over, just to see). That commit involved munging the pitch so that BIOSes that set up the screen poorly don't result in no acceleration to the screen being possible. It's unrelated to selecting which mode is used. -- Eric Anholt <a href="mailto:eta@lclark.edu">eta@lclark.edu</a> <a href="http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/">http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/</a> <a href="mailto:anholt@FreeBSD.org">anholt@FreeBSD.org</a> </blockquote> </div>