From: cwilson@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Christopher S. Wilson) Subject: Paradise 1024 SVGA Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 05:54:53 GMT
I have some information and some questions about support for Paradise
1024 SVGA boards.
First of all this is in the FAQ under "Bugs":
> from chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
> It is possible to run X386 on a Paradise VGA Plus. The X386.0 doc file
> has a small misprint. The Chipset is not pvga. It's pvga1. Anyway,
> under the line in /usr/X386/lib/X11/Xconfig VGA256, add, `chipset "pvga1"`.
> You will need a 512k board. There seems to be a problem with 800x600 mode
> that causes pixels to be misplaced in the center 1/3 of the screen. 640x480
> works fine. Anybody out there might have a fix for that? You may want to use
> X386mono with 800x600 instead.
I'm not sure exactly what "Paradise VGA Plus" is, but from this
description it sounds like it behaves exactly like the board I have.
Mine has 512k and came with my dirt-cheap 386sx a couple years ago and
the only documentation I got was a booklet called "VGA <alpha> 1024
USER'S MANUAL" (there is an actual greek letter alpha there). The
booklet is 108 pages but doesn't mention the name of the manufacturer
*anywhere* (believe me, I've looked). Anyway, I put MS-Windows on my
machine and tried to use the SVGA drivers with it. At 680x480 it was
fine, but at 800x600 it only partly worked -- the image on the screen
was recognizable, but parts were misplaced. Other video modes were
worse.
But I tracked down the Microsoft supplemental driver library, which
Microsoft makes freely copyable, believe it or not. There I found a
set of drivers for "Paradise 1024" SVGA and with those drivers
MS-Windows works perfectly. So it seems that the Paradise 1024 has
non-standard higher resolution modes, but they are usable if you can
get the driver right.
Now when I installed X, I got just the same results described for the
"Paradise VGA Plus" in the FAQ quote I gave: 640x480 works fine,
800x600 mono also works, but 800x600 color gives an image with some
errors.
Now earlier in the FAQ this was listed:
> QUESTION: What VGA boards are supported?
>
> ANSWER:
> et3000, et4000, gvga, pvga1a, wd890c00, tvga8900, ati ver. 5 or 6,
> 8514/A, generic vga: 800x600 mono (Xmono), 640x480x16 (Xega).
>
> Diamond cards are not supported and will not be supported.
> Contact Diamond if you have further questions or (better) buy another card.
>
> Standard x11v1.1 or xfree86 server:
> ET3000 (for ex. GENOA 5300/5400)
> ET4000 (Tricom, STB PWR Graph, Sigma Legend, etc.)
> GVGA (Genoa 6400)
> PVGA1A (Paradise VGA Professional) ... see BUGS.
> WD90C00 (Paradise VGA 1024)
Well, that Paradise VGA 1024 certainly sounds like the same thing I
have (the MS-Windows drivers that worked with it called it that, I
believe). So that means the "Paradise VGA Plus" referred to later is
the same as the Paradise 1024. That means that the chipset for the
Paradise VGA Plus should not be pvga1 but rather wd90c00, which may be
why some of the video modes aren't working.
So perhaps the solution to Chuck Sites' problem, and to mine, is that
the chipset should be wd90c00. The trouble is, the X386 and X386mono
I have has never heard of the WD90C00 (or wd890c00, referred to a few
lines above in the FAQ -- which is the misprint?). It knows about
et3000, et4000, gvga, pvga1, tvga8900 and ati, but not wd90c00. I
just grabbed the latest xbin.2.1 off tsx-11.mit.edu and found that the
X386 and X386mono, dated October 3, also had no wd90c00 support.
So why does the FAQ say the wd90c00 is supported? Is it really a
different chipset? Where can I get an X driver that supports it?
Let me add that I've spent quite a while fiddling with the horizontal
timings for "800x600" color mode (horizontal because that's how the
images are in error, some pixels shifted left/right relative to where
they should be) and I don't think that's the problem. I was able to
move around the image on the screen with timing settings and ruin the
whole picture by having an improper sync pulse, but the errors in the
images were always the same whenever I could see them at all.
The distortions in the picture are constant when nothing is changing,
but when any part of the screen is being changed, the distortions all
over the screen flicker and become much worse. This happens whether
it is just the mouse moving the cursor or text being printed in an
Xterm, so it isn't a problem with the mouse driver. It seems to me it
must be a problem where the frame buffer memory is being accessed by
the CPU at the same time it's being accessed by the video driver. But
that may just be a side effect of other things that are set wrong.
I can't think of anything else to try. Obviously I don't have enough
information about the card to try to write a driver myself. If anyone
has had any experience at all, successful or not, with this card or
one that may be like it, or had a similar problem with a different
card, please e-mail me.
Thanks very much in advance for any suggestions at all.