[PATCH] Add kconfig menus for most chipset VIDEO_MB values

[Uwe Hermann]

See patch.

Uwe.

[Myles Watson]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Uwe Hermann  wrote:
> See patch.

I liked the correspondence between the devices menu and src/devices.  Maybe
some other name would be better for the top-level menu?  I don't think
miscellaneous is really what we want to say for src/devices.

I think it's pretty ugly to have 512 be the value for CONFIG_VIDEO_MB that
means 512K.  I know you didn't do that, but...  Maybe we could just say the
512K of RAM doesn't make that much difference and make the minimum 1MB?

With the menu names fixed:
Acked-by: Myles Watson

Thanks,
Myles

[PATCH] Add kconfig menus for most chipset VIDEO_MB values

[Uwe Hermann]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 02:26:36PM -0600, Myles Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Uwe Hermann  wrote:
> > See patch.
>
> I liked the correspondence between the devices menu and src/devices.  Maybe
> some other name would be better for the top-level menu?  I don't think
> miscellaneous is really what we want to say for src/devices.

The best I could come up with so far is "Chipset" for the top-level menu
and leaving the "Devices" subsection intact. I'm happy about suggestions
for better names.
> I think it's pretty ugly to have 512 be the value for CONFIG_VIDEO_MB that
> means 512K.  I know you didn't do that, but...  Maybe we could just say the
> 512K of RAM doesn't make that much difference and make the minimum 1MB?

Yeah, the 512KB thing is not really nice, but there's not much we can do
about it. We could turn VIDEO_MB into VIDEO_KB instead to have the same
unit everywhere, not sure if that's nicer or uglier.

I don't want to leave out valid options supported by the hardware
though, so the 512KB setting should stay. I think it's not _that_ big
of a problem as the uglyness is only visible to the developers of
two chipsets I think (i810 and i830), but not to the other developers
and especially not to the user (who sees nice menuconfig entries).
We can leave it as is IMHO.
> With the menu names fixed:
> Acked-by: Myles Watson

Thanks, r4866.

libv mentioned on IRC that cn400 and cn700 values may be wrong, can
somebody with datasheets please verify/fix them? Or maybe they can be
extracted from unichrome at

git://people.freedesktop.org/~libv/xf86-video-unichrome

but I wasn't able to find the values after a quick glance (more detailed
checking is probably needed).

Uwe.

[PATCH] Add kconfig menus for most chipset VIDEO_MB values

[Joseph Smith]

Sweet! Great work Uwe, I really like this. Even though it is too late:

Acked-by: Joseph Smith
> > I think it's pretty ugly to have 512 be the value for CONFIG_VIDEO_MB that
> > means 512K.  I know you didn't do that, but...  Maybe we could just say the
> > 512K of RAM doesn't make that much difference and make the minimum 1MB?
>
> Yeah, the 512KB thing is not really nice, but there's not much we can do
> about it. We could turn VIDEO_MB into VIDEO_KB instead to have the same
> unit everywhere, not sure if that's nicer or uglier.
>
> I don't want to leave out valid options supported by the hardware
> though, so the 512KB setting should stay. I think it's not _that_ big
> of a problem as the uglyness is only visible to the developers of
> two chipsets I think (i810 and i830), but not to the other developers
> and especially not to the user (who sees nice menuconfig entries).
> We can leave it as is IMHO.

Yes it is ugly but decimals would be uglier (0.5MB) especially in 
calculations. Anyways if it is supported by the chip it should be there.

[ron minnich]

silly question:

why, in a 45-line high window, does it only let me see 6 mainboards at
a time in menuconfig?

Would be oh-so-cool when demo'ing this to have the huge number of
vendors show up ...

ron

[PATCH] Add kconfig menus for most chipset VIDEO_MB values

[Joseph Smith]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:12:33 -0700, ron minnich  wrote:
> silly question:
>
> why, in a 45-line high window, does it only let me see 6 mainboards at
> a time in menuconfig?

not sure?
> Would be oh-so-cool when demo'ing this to have the huge number of
> vendors show up ...

Yes very cool :-)
It would show these vendors what they are missing out on :-)

[Myles Watson]

> > > I think it's pretty ugly to have 512 be the value for CONFIG_VIDEO_MB
>
> that
> > > means 512K.  I know you didn't do that, but...  Maybe we could just say
>
> the
> > > 512K of RAM doesn't make that much difference and make the minimum 1MB?
> >
> > Yeah, the 512KB thing is not really nice, but there's not much we can do
> > about it. We could turn VIDEO_MB into VIDEO_KB instead to have the same
> > unit everywhere, not sure if that's nicer or uglier.
> >
> > I don't want to leave out valid options supported by the hardware
> > though, so the 512KB setting should stay. I think it's not _that_ big
> > of a problem as the uglyness is only visible to the developers of
> > two chipsets I think (i810 and i830), but not to the other developers
> > and especially not to the user (who sees nice menuconfig entries).
> > We can leave it as is IMHO.
>
> Yes it is ugly but decimals would be uglier (0.5MB) especially in
> calculations. Anyways if it is supported by the chip it should be there.

I don't think "supported by the chipset" is a strong enough argument.  There
are lots of horrible configurations supported by chips that aren't supported
by coreboot.  If there's a good argument why someone might want 512K of
video memory instead of 1MB, then that's a reason to keep it.

It is hard for me to believe that saving 512K of RAM matters to anyone.

Thanks,
Myles

[PATCH] Add kconfig menus for most chipset VIDEO_MB values

[Joseph Smith]

On 10/26/2009 11:18 PM, Myles Watson wrote:
> > > > I think it's pretty ugly to have 512 be the value for CONFIG_VIDEO_MB
> >
> > that
> > > > means 512K.  I know you didn't do that, but...  Maybe we could just say
> >
> > the
> > > > 512K of RAM doesn't make that much difference and make the minimum 1MB?
> > >
> > > Yeah, the 512KB thing is not really nice, but there's not much we can do
> > > about it. We could turn VIDEO_MB into VIDEO_KB instead to have the same
> > > unit everywhere, not sure if that's nicer or uglier.
> > >
> > > I don't want to leave out valid options supported by the hardware
> > > though, so the 512KB setting should stay. I think it's not _that_ big
> > > of a problem as the uglyness is only visible to the developers of
> > > two chipsets I think (i810 and i830), but not to the other developers
> > > and especially not to the user (who sees nice menuconfig entries).
> > > We can leave it as is IMHO.
> >
> > Yes it is ugly but decimals would be uglier (0.5MB) especially in
> > calculations. Anyways if it is supported by the chip it should be there.
>
> I don't think "supported by the chipset" is a strong enough argument.  There
> are lots of horrible configurations supported by chips that aren't supported
> by coreboot.  If there's a good argument why someone might want 512K of
> video memory instead of 1MB, then that's a reason to keep it.
>
> It is hard for me to believe that saving 512K of RAM matters to anyone.

I does when you don't care when you just use a shell (lamp server etc).
Also if your board only has 128MB on board memory, you may want to 
conserve as much as you can.....

[PATCH] Add kconfig menus for most chipset VIDEO_MB values

[Joseph Smith]

On 10/26/2009 11:22 PM, Joseph Smith wrote:
> On 10/26/2009 11:18 PM, Myles Watson wrote:
> > > > > I think it's pretty ugly to have 512 be the value for CONFIG_VIDEO_MB
> > >
> > > that
> > > > > means 512K. I know you didn't do that, but... Maybe we could just say
> > >
> > > the
> > > > > 512K of RAM doesn't make that much difference and make the minimum
> > > > > 1MB?
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, the 512KB thing is not really nice, but there's not much we
> > > > can do
> > > > about it. We could turn VIDEO_MB into VIDEO_KB instead to have the same
> > > > unit everywhere, not sure if that's nicer or uglier.
> > > >
> > > > I don't want to leave out valid options supported by the hardware
> > > > though, so the 512KB setting should stay. I think it's not _that_ big
> > > > of a problem as the uglyness is only visible to the developers of
> > > > two chipsets I think (i810 and i830), but not to the other developers
> > > > and especially not to the user (who sees nice menuconfig entries).
> > > > We can leave it as is IMHO.
> > >
> > > Yes it is ugly but decimals would be uglier (0.5MB) especially in
> > > calculations. Anyways if it is supported by the chip it should be there.
> >
> > I don't think "supported by the chipset" is a strong enough argument.
> > There
> > are lots of horrible configurations supported by chips that aren't
> > supported
> > by coreboot. If there's a good argument why someone might want 512K of
> > video memory instead of 1MB, then that's a reason to keep it.
> >
> > It is hard for me to believe that saving 512K of RAM matters to anyone.
>
> I does when you don't care when you just use a shell (lamp server etc).
> Also if your board only has 128MB on board memory, you may want to
> conserve as much as you can.....

I remember when I used to run a clarkconnect sever on an i810. I turned 
the vga down to the lowest setting in the bios, because clarkconnect did 
not have a GUI.....