Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 06:13:53 +0000 From: Natasha Kerensikova <natbsd@instinctive.eu> To: Jonathan Anderson <jonathan@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 4.6 DM/i915 test report on Bay Trail (Celeron J1800)\ Message-ID: <20160726061353.GB8286@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu> In-Reply-To: <1C182523-47E4-4C1D-A5E5-4B7BEA47092D@FreeBSD.org> References: <20160725093641.GA98977@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu> <1C182523-47E4-4C1D-A5E5-4B7BEA47092D@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, on Monday 25 July 2016 at 10:54, Jonathan Anderson wrote: > I've found on my Skylake machine that the modesetting driver is more > stable and produces fewer artifacts than SNA. I got to this driver by > deleting my /usr/local/etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/XX-intel-driver.conf > entirely: without a configuration directive to use the Intel X driver, > it just used the KMS stuff transparently. Do you mean the "scfb" driver, instead of the intel one? I haven't managed to make it work, but didn't try very hard. I read it was unaccelerated, and I have already vesa that suits all my non-accelerated needs, so I still wonder what would be the point of scfb in my particular situation. It doesn't seem to be present on the CFT image, because when I removed all xorg conf, it showed exactly the same symptoms as my SNA testing, so I guess (at least on the CFT image) X defaults to intel driver with SNA acceleration. Thanks for the help, Natasha
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160726061353.GB8286>