Re: port-amd64/52454: wsconsctl font size manipulation on amd64 arch

[feodor <feodor%logd.fr@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR port-amd64/52454; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: feodor <feodor%logd.fr@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: 
Subject: Re: port-amd64/52454: wsconsctl font size manipulation on amd64
 arch
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 08:43:08 +0200

 On Thu,  3 Aug 2017 08:10:01 +0000 (UTC)
 Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost> wrote:
 
 > The following reply was made to PR port-amd64/52454; it has been
 > noted by GNATS.
 > 
 > From: Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>
 > To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
 > Cc: feodor%logd.fr@localhost
 > Subject: Re: port-amd64/52454: wsconsctl font size manipulation on
 > amd64 arch Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 10:05:46 +0200
 > 
 >  On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 04:35:01PM +0000, feodor wrote:
 >  >  This is really a different frambuffer between amd64 and i386
 >  > arch ? In that case, why ?
 >  
 >  No, not usually - but something goes wrong somewhere and so far we
 > have no idea what and where. Fontload failure may be driver specific,
 > so different drivers for console would be an easy explanation for the
 >  difference.
 >  
 >  > My two tests are on the same virtual machine.
 >  
 >  You did not mention that before (or I overlooked it).
 
 Yes forgot this detail, my bad.
 
 >  >  genfb0 at pci0 dev 2 function 0: vendor 0x80ee product 0xbeef
 >  > (rev. 0x00) genfb0: framebuffer at 0xe0000000, size 1024x768,
 >  > depth 8, stride 1024 wsdisplay0 at genfb0 kbdmux 1: console
 >  > (default, vt100 emulation), using wskbd0 wsmux1: connecting to
 >  > wsdisplay0 drm at genfb0 not configured
 >  
 >  Is this part the same when booting i386?
 
 So, what you ask :
 
 genfb0 at pci0 dev 2 function 0: vendor 0x80ee product 0xbeef (rev.
 0x00) genfb0: framebuffer at 0xe0000000, size 1024x768, depth 8, stride
 1024 wsdisplay0 at genfb0 kbdmux 1: console (default, vt100 emulation),
 using wskbd0 wsmux1: connecting to wsdisplay0
 drm at genfb0 not configured
 
 If i see well, this is the same report.
 
 >  Martin
 >  
 
 Sorry for the delay, not simple every week.
 I will reply faster next time.
 
 feodor