On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:43:37PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On Mi, 2016-10-05 at 12:30 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 08:34:57AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > > On Di, 2016-10-04 at 09:43 +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > diff --git
On Mi, 2016-10-05 at 12:30 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 08:34:57AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > On Di, 2016-10-04 at 09:43 +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drm_bus.c
> > > >
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 08:34:57AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On Di, 2016-10-04 at 09:43 +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drm_bus.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drm_bus.c
> > > index a59d0e309bfc..1fcf739bf509 100644
> > >
On Di, 2016-10-04 at 09:43 +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drm_bus.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drm_bus.c
> > index a59d0e309bfc..1fcf739bf509 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drm_bus.c
> > +++
Hi,
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drm_bus.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drm_bus.c
> index a59d0e309bfc..1fcf739bf509 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drm_bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_drm_bus.c
> @@ -68,6 +68,10 @@ int drm_virtio_init(struct
On 10/03/16 22:34, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 10/03/16 21:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
With kernel commit a325725633c2 applied, the drmGetBusid() call in
get_drm_info()
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 10/03/16 21:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> With kernel commit a325725633c2 applied, the drmGetBusid() call in
>>> get_drm_info() [hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/lnx_platform.c] returns
>>>
On 10/03/16 21:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> With kernel commit a325725633c2 applied, the drmGetBusid() call in
>> get_drm_info() [hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/lnx_platform.c] returns
>> "virtio0".
>>
>> Without kernel commit a325725633c2 in
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> With kernel commit a325725633c2 applied, the drmGetBusid() call in
> get_drm_info() [hw/xfree86/os-support/linux/lnx_platform.c] returns
> "virtio0".
>
> Without kernel commit a325725633c2 in place, the same function call
> produces
On 10/03/16 17:00, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 3 October 2016 at 15:27, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> [snip]
>> the v3 patch accidentally removed the similarly customized set_busid
>> callback for amdgpu -- drm_pci_set_busid(). Emil caught that error in
>> review, hence the v4 patch wouldn't contain the
On 10/03/16 16:15, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 10/03/16 13:34, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 30 September 2016 at 18:26, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> On 09/30/16 18:38, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 30-09-16 17:33, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 09/30/16 16:59, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
On 10/03/16 13:34, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 30 September 2016 at 18:26, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 09/30/16 18:38, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 30-09-16 17:33, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 09/30/16 16:59, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 30-09-16 16:51, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 3 October 2016 at 15:27, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
[snip]
> the v3 patch accidentally removed the similarly customized set_busid
> callback for amdgpu -- drm_pci_set_busid(). Emil caught that error in
> review, hence the v4 patch wouldn't contain the same error.
>
You're spot on - virtio-gpu doesn't
On 10/03/16 14:46, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 3 October 2016 at 13:14, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 10/03/16 13:34, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>> On 30 September 2016 at 18:26, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>
This setup (modulo the kernel of course) was known to work, but now the
X server actually
On 10/03/16 13:34, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 30 September 2016 at 18:26, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> This setup (modulo the kernel of course) was known to work, but now the
>> X server actually segfaults (apparently in the
>> xf86PlatformDeviceCheckBusID() function). Please find the logfile attached.
On 3 October 2016 at 13:14, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 10/03/16 13:34, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 30 September 2016 at 18:26, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
>>> This setup (modulo the kernel of course) was known to work, but now the
>>> X server actually segfaults (apparently in the
>>>
On 30 September 2016 at 18:26, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 09/30/16 18:38, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 30-09-16 17:33, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> On 09/30/16 16:59, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 30-09-16 16:51, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 09/30/16 12:35, Hans de Goede wrote:
On 09/30/16 18:38, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 30-09-16 17:33, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 09/30/16 16:59, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 30-09-16 16:51, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
On 09/30/16 12:35, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Attached are 2 patches against the xserver which
Hi,
On 30-09-16 17:33, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 09/30/16 16:59, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 30-09-16 16:51, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>> On 09/30/16 12:35, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>
Attached are 2 patches against the xserver which should fix this,
please give them a try.
>>>
>>>
On 09/30/16 16:59, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 30-09-16 16:51, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 09/30/16 12:35, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>
>>> Attached are 2 patches against the xserver which should fix this,
>>> please give them a try.
>>
>> Sorry about the delay.
>>
>> The patches don't seem to fix
Hi,
On 30-09-16 16:51, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 09/30/16 12:35, Hans de Goede wrote:
>
>> Attached are 2 patches against the xserver which should fix this,
>> please give them a try.
>
> Sorry about the delay.
>
> The patches don't seem to fix the issue for me. Please see the Xorg log
> attached.
On 09/30/16 12:35, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Attached are 2 patches against the xserver which should fix this,
> please give them a try.
Sorry about the delay.
The patches don't seem to fix the issue for me. Please see the Xorg log
attached.
I tested the patches as follows. Given that my
Hi,
On 30-09-16 10:28, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Xorg when running without a Xorg.conf searches for what it considers
> a "primary" gpu / video-card, basically it attempts to bring up the
> right card in setups where there are multiple cards and if it does not
> find one exits with an
On 09/30/16 10:28, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 30-09-16 05:09, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> Hello Daniel,
>>
>> On 06/21/16 14:08, daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch (Daniel Vetter) wrote:
>>> We already have a fallback in place to fill out the unique from
>>> dev->unique, which is set to something
On 30 September 2016 at 10:55, Emil Velikov wrote:
> Hi all
>
> On 30 September 2016 at 04:09, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> Hello Daniel,
>>
>> On 06/21/16 14:08, daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch (Daniel Vetter) wrote:
>>> We already have a fallback in place to fill out the unique from
>>> dev->unique, which
Hi all
On 30 September 2016 at 04:09, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> Hello Daniel,
>
> On 06/21/16 14:08, daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch (Daniel Vetter) wrote:
>> We already have a fallback in place to fill out the unique from
>> dev->unique, which is set to something reasonable in drm_dev_alloc.
>>
>> Which
Hi,
On 30-09-16 05:09, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> Hello Daniel,
>
> On 06/21/16 14:08, daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch (Daniel Vetter) wrote:
>> We already have a fallback in place to fill out the unique from
>> dev->unique, which is set to something reasonable in drm_dev_alloc.
>>
>> Which means we only
Hello Daniel,
On 06/21/16 14:08, daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch (Daniel Vetter) wrote:
> We already have a fallback in place to fill out the unique from
> dev->unique, which is set to something reasonable in drm_dev_alloc.
>
> Which means we only need to have a special set_busid for pci devices,
> to
28 matches
Mail list logo
