El Mar 25 Sep 2001 07:27, escribiste:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Manuel Teira wrote:
> > Perhaps we should work with the latest DRI trunk. Do you think it worth
> > the effort?
>
> It seems that most of the changes I noticed have been in the drivers for
> the newer cards, but I haven't really looked a
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, Manuel Teira wrote:
> Perhaps we should work with the latest DRI trunk. Do you think it worth the
> effort?
It seems that most of the changes I noticed have been in the drivers for
the newer cards, but I haven't really looked at it that closely at this
point. I'm certainly
El Dom 23 Sep 2001 04:50, escribiste:
> According to the register ref. (p.4-26), "GB" means "BGA package, AGP:
> both 1x and 2x)." I have an LT Pro, which has "LB" in the device ID.
> This is in the CFG_CHIP_TYPE in CONFIG_CHIP_ID. There's also a class,
> foundry ID, and major/minor numbers in C
According to the register ref. (p.4-26), "GB" means "BGA package, AGP:
both 1x and 2x)." I have an LT Pro, which has "LB" in the device ID.
This is in the CFG_CHIP_TYPE in CONFIG_CHIP_ID. There's also a class,
foundry ID, and major/minor numbers in CONFIG_CHIP_ID.
At any rate, I just looked at
Hi all,
I've looked at the documentation, and it's odd, it seems like nobody is
mentioning the Mach64 GB. It might be this is simply named wrong in my
bios, and it seems to run the same as other cards.
Here's my PCI entry: pci bus 0x1 cardnum 0x00 function 0x: vendor
0x1002 device 0x4742
El Dom 23 Sep 2001 00:28, escribiste:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, Manuel Teira wrote:
> > El Sáb 22 Sep 2001 19:08, escribiste:
> > And now, the results:
> >
> > 1.-When the new bm_dma_test is called from the dma_init it fails as ever.
> > Then, if I try to run the 'gears' demo, it hangs the machine.
>
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, Manuel Teira wrote:
> El Sáb 22 Sep 2001 19:08, escribiste:
> > Manuel Teira wrote:
> > > El Sáb 22 Sep 2001 18:30, escribiste:
> > > > You can pass an argument to isosurf to tell it to render only 100
> > > > triangles (isosurf -100) - another good option, and you can get it
El Sáb 22 Sep 2001 19:08, escribiste:
> Manuel Teira wrote:
> > El Sáb 22 Sep 2001 18:30, escribiste:
> > > You can pass an argument to isosurf to tell it to render only 100
> > > triangles (isosurf -100) - another good option, and you can get it to
> > > render more by moving with the arrow keys.
On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 01:16:27PM -0700, David Bronaugh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is re Andreas Karrenbauer's prob.. perhaps it's a bit off topic, but
> it might help...
>
> Have you tried logging in via SSH and killing off and starting X via that?
> I have had a fair degree of success restoring gr
Hi,
This is re Andreas Karrenbauer's prob.. perhaps it's a bit off topic, but
it might help...
Have you tried logging in via SSH and killing off and starting X via that?
I have had a fair degree of success restoring graphics mode that way
(though text mode stays hosed).
As I said, I don't know
Manuel Teira wrote:
>
> El Sáb 22 Sep 2001 18:30, escribiste:
>
> >
> > You can pass an argument to isosurf to tell it to render only 100 triangles
> > (isosurf -100) - another good option, and you can get it to render more by
> > moving with the arrow keys.
> isosurf, where could I find it?
Me
El Sáb 22 Sep 2001 18:30, escribiste:
>
> You can pass an argument to isosurf to tell it to render only 100 triangles
> (isosurf -100) - another good option, and you can get it to render more by
> moving with the arrow keys.
isosurf, where could I find it?
Thanks.
--
M. Teira
_
Manuel Teira wrote:
>
> El Sáb 22 Sep 2001 18:12, escribiste:
> > Manuel Teira wrote:
> > > Then, I closed my eyes and fired 'gears'. Well, it didn't lock my
> > > machine, the gears window only contained garbage, but the program was
> > > running, and saying:
> > > 1786 frames in 5.002 seconds =
El Sáb 22 Sep 2001 18:12, escribiste:
> Manuel Teira wrote:
> > Then, I closed my eyes and fired 'gears'. Well, it didn't lock my
> > machine, the gears window only contained garbage, but the program was
> > running, and saying:
> > 1786 frames in 5.002 seconds = 357.057 FPS
> > 1736 frames in 5 s
Manuel Teira wrote:
> Then, I closed my eyes and fired 'gears'. Well, it didn't lock my machine,
> the gears window only contained garbage, but the program was running, and
> saying:
> 1786 frames in 5.002 seconds = 357.057 FPS
> 1736 frames in 5 seconds = 347.2 FPS
>
> Well, I tried it severa
El Sáb 22 Sep 2001 17:03, escribiste:
> Manuel Teira wrote:
>
> have a look at
> there's the explaination about this API. I think we should use this if
> anybody hasn't any objections.
> pci_pool_create is specified:
> pool = pci_pool_create( name, dev, size, align, alloc, flags );
> in this cas
Manuel Teira wrote:
> It's nice to hear about you again. I'll test the changes you've made on my
> machine ASAP. BTW, I've take a fast look about the way you are allocating the
> memory for the test:
>
> struct pci_pool *pool;
> void *cpu_addr_table, *cpu_addr_data;
> void *cpu_addr_table, *c
El Sáb 22 Sep 2001 14:54, escribiste:
> Hi guys!
>
> I've had lot of other things to do in the past weeks so I couldn't work
> on mach64. I've still problems to compile the trunk with Manuel's
> patches. I haven't had time to track this down, so I decided to post my
> changes of mach64_dma.c which
El Sáb 22 Sep 2001 14:54, escribiste:
> Hi guys!
>
> I've had lot of other things to do in the past weeks so I couldn't work
> on mach64. I've still problems to compile the trunk with Manuel's
> patches. I haven't had time to track this down, so I decided to post my
> changes of mach64_dma.c which
Hi guys!
I've had lot of other things to do in the past weeks so I couldn't work
on mach64. I've still problems to compile the trunk with Manuel's
patches. I haven't had time to track this down, so I decided to post my
changes of mach64_dma.c which I have made in my copy of the
mach64-branch.
20 matches
Mail list logo
