Re: [patches] Re: r300 radeon 9800 lockup

2005-05-30 Thread Aapo Tahkola
On Mon, 30 May 2005 20:31:24 -0400 Jonathan Bastien-Filiatrault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: > > > Nicolai Haehnle wrote: > > > >> Hi everybody, > >> > >> I once again tripped upon an R300 lockup (possibly the same one that > >> everybody's been talking about) and spent th

[2.6 patch] DRM: misc cleanup

2005-05-30 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 09:16:16PM +1100, Dave Airlie wrote: > > I'll nack this patch for now Adrian, but I'm going to bring all these > changes into the DRM tree as soon as I can.. one of the functions you > removed pointed out a bug in the i810/i830/i915 drivers (granted > no-one uses pageflip i

[Bug 2241] implement GL_ARB_texture_cube_map in radeon driver

2005-05-30 Thread bugzilla-daemon
Please do not reply to this email: if you want to comment on the bug, go to the URL shown below and enter yourcomments there. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2241 Bug 2241 depends on bug 2195, which changed state. Bug 2195 Summary: switch radeon d

[Bug 2195] switch radeon driver to t_vertex interface

2005-05-30 Thread bugzilla-daemon
Please do not reply to this email: if you want to comment on the bug, go to the URL shown below and enter yourcomments there. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2195 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added --

Re: SIGSEGV in r200 when called by JOGL

2005-05-30 Thread Nik
Dave Airlie wrote: My kernel has AGP=<*> and drm=<*>, according to make menuconfig. you need drm = or drm= built-in drm is bad.. Well, it certainly makes it difficult to upgrade in the usual way... For the information of the list, I have just upgraded my Fedora Core 3 installation to ker

Re: [patches] Re: r300 radeon 9800 lockup

2005-05-30 Thread Jonathan Bastien-Filiatrault
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: > Nicolai Haehnle wrote: > >> Hi everybody, >> >> I once again tripped upon an R300 lockup (possibly the same one that >> everybody's been talking about) and spent the last one and half days >> chasing it down. >> >> It turns out that writing the vertex buffer age to scratc

Re: SIGSEGV in r200 when called by JOGL

2005-05-30 Thread Dave Airlie
> > My kernel has AGP=<*> and drm=<*>, according to make menuconfig. you need drm = or drm= built-in drm is bad.. > > > you can load the drm.ko and radeon.ko from CVS into the kernel, > > By this do you mean install and compile the new Mesa and DRM modules, then run > mkinitrd to install them in

Re: r300 bugs

2005-05-30 Thread Nicolai Haehnle
Hi, On Monday 30 May 2005 08:51, Vladimir Dergachev wrote: > On Mon, 30 May 2005, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote: > > > Hi, > > I've just tried out the r300 driver - works remarkably well for "untested and > > broken" code. > > :)) > > > > > I've run into 2 bugs though: > > It doesn't work well

Re: SIGSEGV in r200 when called by JOGL

2005-05-30 Thread Nik
Thank you for you response, Dave. Dave Airlie wrote: don't configure drm in your kernel or at least don't load your kernels drm... one of the 2.6.11 FC3 kernels has DRM=y which is a bit of a pain for us, but Davej has said this should be fixed for all future releases... My kernel has AGP=<*>

Re: [PATCH] DRM depends on ???

2005-05-30 Thread Helge Hafting
Kyle Moffett wrote: On May 29, 2005, at 15:58:10, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: What Kyle said is the correct answer... we either keep this lovely construct (I'll add a comment for 2.6.13) or we go back to the old intermodule or module_get stuff... DRM built-in with modular AGP is always wrong.

Re: [PATCH] DRM depends on ???

2005-05-30 Thread Dave Airlie
> > Why is that case invalid? I may have DRM=y so I get DRM on my > PCI graphichs card. Then I might load an agp module in order > to use agp on *some other* agp card. I have no problem with DRM=y,AGP=m being > invalid for the common > single-card setup, but there are multi-card setups too. Not

Re: SIGSEGV in r200 when called by JOGL

2005-05-30 Thread Dave Airlie
> Looking at this mailing list, I see that there are certain combinations of > static vs dynamic modules that just don't work. Am I correct in presuming that > this is what I'm encountering? If so, what is the recommended solution? > 2. Change the kernel config to make DRM, MESA, AGP, DRI (and any

Re: [PATCH] DRM depends on ???

2005-05-30 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Dave Airlie wrote: > > OK. So we still need the dependency on PCI. > > at the moment yes but I'm think we will have to remove this as soon as > we get the Sparc ffb stuff up and running again, the ffb driver > doesn't do any PCI stuff, we have some code around but we haven't h

Re: [PATCH] DRM depends on ???

2005-05-30 Thread Dave Airlie
> OK. So we still need the dependency on PCI. > at the moment yes but I'm think we will have to remove this as soon as we get the Sparc ffb stuff up and running again, the ffb driver doesn't do any PCI stuff, we have some code around but we haven't had any testing done on it and I'm sure its rott

Re: [PATCH] DRM depends on ???

2005-05-30 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Sun, 29 May 2005, Kyle Moffett wrote: > On May 29, 2005, at 15:58:10, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > What Kyle said is the correct answer... we either keep this lovely > > > construct (I'll add a comment for 2.6.13) or we go back to the old > > > intermodule or module_get stuff... DRM built-in