# Re: \[PATCH v2\] matroxfb: remove incorrect Matrox G200eV support

- From: Yannick Heneault \<hidden\>
- Date: 2011-03-16 20:24:25 
- List: linux-fbdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-fbdev/2011/03/3690694
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-fbdev/2011/03/3684282/t.md

```text
It impossible that this patch should have work on a system. The patch 
only declare the G200eV as a regular G200 which is not case. Many 
registers are different, including at least the PLL programming 
sequence. If the G200eV is programmed like a regular G200, it will not 
display anything.

Yannick

On 03/11/2011 05:23 PM, Gary Hade wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 07:59:16PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>    
>> On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 12:29 -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>      
>>> This is all quite strange -- 2.5 years ago when I wrote the patch it
>>> seemed to
>>> work ok.  On newer revisions of the x3650M2 it seems broken.  The
>>> original
>>> machine I wrote it for was cut up ages ago.
>>>
>>> I suppose we could simply blacklist any G200eV with a subsystem vendor
>>> ID of
>>> 0x1014 (IBM) until we figure out how to correct the driver.  Our
>>> customers will
>>> be deprived, but as it seems to be broken across most of our product
>>> lines I
>>> doubt any of them are making serious use of it anyway. :)
>>>
>>> Something like this?
>>>        
>> Does X work with the open source drivers ?
>>      
> Yes, X works fine on at least the IBM System x boxes that have
> the Matrox G200eV.
>
>    
>> In that case a better
>> approach would be to try to figure out what's different between the way
>> the 2 drivers setup the card registers and fix matroxfb..
>>      
> I suppose someone could attempt this but with vesafb available as
> an alternate fb provider and no known demand for repaired G200eV
> support in matroxfb, I am not sure what benefit it would provide.
>
> Gary
>
>
>    

```