On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 01:48:35PM +0200, Martin Spott wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 11:46:43AM +0100, José Fonseca wrote: > > > And everything else looks normal - the AGP seems to be alive and > > kicking. Do you still get "direct rendering: No" in glxinfo or "AGP not > > available" in /var/log/messages ? > > Yep: > > 1.) /var/log/XFree86.0.log tells me > > (II) RADEON(0): [drm] created "radeon" driver at busid "PCI:1:0:0" > (II) RADEON(0): [drm] added 8192 byte SAREA at 0xe0c70000 > (II) RADEON(0): [drm] mapped SAREA 0xe0c70000 to 0x40023000 > (II) RADEON(0): [drm] framebuffer handle = 0xd8000000 > (II) RADEON(0): [drm] added 1 reserved context for kernel > (WW) RADEON(0): [agp] AGP not available > (II) RADEON(0): [drm] removed 1 reserved context for kernel > (II) RADEON(0): [drm] unmapping 8192 bytes of SAREA 0xe0c70000 at 0x40023000 > (II) RADEON(0): Memory manager initialized to (0,0) (1152,8191) > (II) RADEON(0): Reserved area from (0,864) to (1152,866) > (II) RADEON(0): Largest offscreen area available: 1152 x 7325 > (II) RADEON(0): Acceleration enabled > (II) RADEON(0): Using hardware cursor (scanline 866) > (II) RADEON(0): Largest offscreen area available: 1152 x 7321 > (II) RADEON(0): Direct rendering disabled
This can't be. This log can't possible match the other one you gave me. In the /var/log/messages it showed the agp buffer being added and so on. The only explanantion I can think of is that you're running _two_ X servers. The first one acquires the AGP device but the second fails to acquire, since the AGP device is already acquired by the first. Are you (intentionally or unintentionally) running a second X server? > 2.) 'glxinfo' still says "OpenGL renderer string: Mesa GLX Indirect" > > > I really don't know where to look now, so I depend on you/the list for hints > what do do to resolve this issue. I'd start by manually backing out the > patch from June 4th - or will I run into issues with this attempt ? Hey, I though myself several times that that patch got me into much more troubles than I'd ever expect to. But backing out now sounds even worse to me, since it renders all this effort worthless and doesn't help in understanding how some simple code reorganization (which is needded IMHO) could have such strange side-effects. Nevertheless these patches aren't those innocent creatures I claimed they were, so if the others DRI developers think it's better to back them out, then that's what I will do, and proceeding work on new branch or perhaps just on my hard drive. So [the other developers] please manifest your opinions. José Fonseca ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: eBay Great deals on office technology -- on eBay now! Click here: http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5 _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
