From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Sep 11 20:03:28 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD30106568B
	for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:03:28 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bf1783@googlemail.com)
Received: from mail-bw0-f206.google.com (mail-bw0-f206.google.com
	[209.85.218.206])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126128FC17
	for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:03:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by bwz2 with SMTP id 2so977718bwz.43
	for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject
	:from:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=lDCHb32TqgR+X8LxkNV9M6DnotuTU6ov6MuOsDmnDyg=;
	b=gSGwwYQIsErjEXyuKC94DJnHbK3fSMDwBCQQc3H4scYoMD3sOeWVKojz8R9bgcL7YG
	lSaWpwsRO6ysKqHAsOLv7HvQi723EzXUGQdZ/QnYt5jdDFTgmIol01/0LiKigjjjSJze
	JIACWOjnZRWU/boz36jmpoFAwJtsXOkIQCPWo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
	b=SrWuh1NaRatYl6Or7xv5KYy2CvQ/Mb0X1EngpCn5doYCtELuj0ysQa/8jVBIuzrIpl
	J8qsjs18iX7zPUv+bjn+7wmUglIq+/7D0a8LBJSRqHxOJJUBBlhELbSVs2dI+RbIR8zl
	cS1f6trdtlwIdGwvSg/Gp8Qya/ftRw0jlAAYU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.239.143.215 with SMTP id l23mr291387hba.163.1252699406623; 
	Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:03:26 +0000
Message-ID: <d873d5be0909111303m3ea6d166k3f4d44025faadd77@mail.gmail.com>
From: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com>
To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: delphij@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: vesa(4) and amd64
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:03:28 -0000

After the recent x86emu/vesa/dpms commits, I'm now able to use some
more graphics modes with syscons on amd64. That's good.  Not so good
is the fact that my HP Pavilion desktop running 9-CURRENT i386 r197085
with

devic sc
options SC_PIXEL_MODE
device vga
options VGA_WIDTH90

in the kernel and agp, dpms, x86emu, and vesa loaded as kernel modules
can no longer use the 132x60 mode that had been my default syscons
mode, and now yields a blank screen.  Even worse is the fact that my
Toshiba laptop, with nearly the same configuration, locks up with a
screen full of zeroes every time I load the new vesa kernel module,
when formerly it had no such problem.  Other than simplifying the
organization of the code, is there any advantage to be gained from
forcing those platforms that are capable of native vesa to use x86emu?
 Because up to this point there are serious disadvantages to doing so.

Regards,
                b.