On Apr  3, 11:43am, Jonathan Stone wrote:
> The comparisons should be transposed, and i guess then the bt459
> driver should use the same code as the others.  I _guess_ that if the
> mfb framebuffer is laid out with 2048 bytes between
> vertically-adjacent pixels, then the older code (as in pm.c and
> bt459.c) is the right comparison to use: even when fixed, the new code
> would let you move a cursor into pixels between 1280 and 2048 (which
> aren't visible).
> 
> Is anyone with an SFB or MFB willing to test such a change?

  The 5000/25 I have has an SFB that I could test it on.  At the moment I
have all my disks on a 5000/50, so I can't do much on the 5000/25.  I could
move the SFB to the 5000/50, but I don't have a monitor I can dedicate to
it.

Michael

-- 
Michael L. Hitch			INTERNET:  mhitch@montana.edu
Computer Consultant
Information Technology Center
Montana State University	Bozeman, MT	USA