Question(s) regarding xf86-video-* extensions

[SeventhSin]

Hello,

I have noticed inconsistent behavior among xf86-video-* extensions. Tested on Core 10.x x86.

a) xf86-video-intel : does have graphics-KERNEL listed as a dependency in Apps - Depends.

tce-load -wi xf86-video-intel => immediate screen resolution bump before startx.

b) xf86-video-ati : does not have graphics-KERNEL listed as a dependency in Apps - Depends.

tce-load -wi firmware-radeon xf86-video-ati => no screen resolution bump before startx, needs manual graphics-KERNEL install.

c) xf86-video-amdgpu : not tested, most likely the same behavior as b), since it does not list any dependencies in Apps - Depends.

A couple of questions relating to the above:

1. Is there any compelling reason for this behavior? Wouldn't it be more consistent to have xf86-video-ati and xf86-video-amdgpu behave the same way as xf86-video-intel and automatically install graphic-KERNEL too ?

2. Is there any compelling reason for not having the graphics firmware(s) bundled with the graphic driver packages (see b) ?

I may be mistaken, but whenever glancing at "video issue(s)" threads in the past, I sooner or later noticed the suggestion to "install graphic-KERNEL" extension. Perhaps these recurrent issues could be "tamed" by aligning the xf86-video-* extensions? Just a thought.

Comments greatly appreciated.

[curaga]

It used to be that -ati did not require KMS (the graphics- extension), so a historical artifact I guess. Current versions do require it. Having graphics- as a dep should be fine.

Some of the firmwares are very large, and space-conscious users take just the firmware for their card; also not all cards require the firmware.

[SeventhSin]

also not all cards require the firmware.

In your experience, is there any issue to be expected if one installs the graphics card firmware extension anyway even if not required for a particular card?

[curaga]

Only the space usage.

[SeventhSin]

Only the space usage.

Thank you for confirming this.

[SeventhSin]

It used to be that -ati did not require KMS (the graphics- extension), so a historical artifact I guess. Current versions do require it. Having graphics- as a dep should be fine.

Is there an official way to submit a proposal for adding graphics-KERNEL as a dep to xf86-video-ati & xf86-video-amdgpu ?

@Juanito, I see the extensions are authored/maintained by you. Is this something you'd be willing to look into ?

[Rich]

Hi SeventhSin
Even if  graphics-KERNEL  is not added as dependency to those other extensions, you can simply install it by default if you want to.

[Juanito]

@Juanito, I see the extensions are authored/maintained by you. Is this something you'd be willing to look into ?

I'm not convinced that it is neccessary in every case, but done.

[SeventhSin]

Hi SeventhSin
Even if  graphics-KERNEL  is not added as dependency to those other extensions, you can simply install it by default if you want to.

Hello Rich,

Now I know this.

However, I only recently fully engaged (Tiny)Core after spending 4 Months fully testing a dozen or so Linux distros for suitability to purpose. This makes me fairly new to the platform and unfamiliar with many of the assumptions the core contributors and long term users take for granted.

Starting with a clean slate, I had to thoroughly test (Tiny)Core's graphics subsystem on various hardware. I went Intel -> Ati/AMD -> NVIDIA tests. After Intel, I had some information enabling the making of a couple of assumptions on how things are set-up. These assumptions did not stand after moving on to Ati/AMD & NVIDIA hardware tests (extension installation did not result in consistent behavior among different hardware). I then realized that my assumptions were consistency based while the current extension setup was based on other factors, unknown to me. Hence the purpose of this thread.

[SeventhSin]

I'm not convinced that it is neccessary in every case, but done.

Thank you so much Juanito !

I agree this alignment is not able to and can not cover every case. However, I think striving to cover every possible case can quickly result in complexity and confusion, especially for new users. I also personally believe that consistency is a significantly cleaner approach, resulting in immediate benefits. Just me thinking out loud.