http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26570
Shawn Starr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26195
--- Comment #17 from Michael Lothian 2010-03-05 17:25:16
PST ---
This was using the latest head of drm-radeon-testing which has been working
fine for a while as per this bug
Did you want me to go back to when I had issues or revert the disa
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26496
--- Comment #9 from Joseph Jezak 2010-03-05 16:42:54 PST
---
I'm using kernel 2.6.33, libdrm-2.4.16 and not using KMS, but if you'd like I
can try that as well. Bisected, and came up with this as the problem commit:
5fb5ea97f4439184f03075f5
>From 6e323fc30b00aac303973ef3d5cadd4ba1f228c6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alex Deucher
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:22:24 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] drm/radeon/r600: add missing license and comments to
r600_blit_shaders.c
R6xx+ cards need to use the 3D engine to blit data which requires
quite a bit o
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 16:11 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 23:19:13 +0100
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 12:37:23PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> >
> > > Would anyone have objections if these lists moved to freedesktop.org?
> > > The recent thread with Linus
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 23:19:13 +0100
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 12:37:23PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
> > Would anyone have objections if these lists moved to freedesktop.org?
> > The recent thread with Linus about the drm pull request highlights the
> > post lag and non-subscriber
>
> Distro's that want to have a good reputation need to have a higher
> standard than, "hey, it's allowed by the GPL." And maybe if we are
> sinking to the point where people are going to use "stable means ABI
> breakages are allowed", we need to change the rules, since people want
> to quote rul
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 12:37:23PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> Would anyone have objections if these lists moved to freedesktop.org?
> The recent thread with Linus about the drm pull request highlights the
> post lag and non-subscriber aspect of the current lists,
Err, how would moving the
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> The thing I objected to, in the VERY BEGINNING in this thread, i the fact
> that the thing was done in such a way that it's basically impossible to
> support the old/new ABI at all!
[...]
> The way this was done, it's apparently basically i
On 03/05/2010 09:42 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 10:17 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:37:18AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>>> If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
>>> does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the way it's breaking
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:38:46AM -0800, Corbin Simpson wrote:
> If distros want to run weird experiments on their users, let them!
> Sure, sometimes bad things happen, but sometimes good things happen
> too. ConsoleKit, DeviceKit, HAL, NetworkManager, KMS, yaird, dracut,
> Plymouth, the list goes
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Ben Skeggs wrote:
>> The F13 packages *will* work, so long as you're not bisecting back and
>> forth.
>
> How do I install just the F13 libdrm thing, without changing everything
> else? I'm willing to try. We can make it p
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26195
--- Comment #16 from Rafał Miłecki 2010-03-05 15:22:56 PST
---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Was this what you were after?
Well, I'm afraid there is something wrong about your testing. I don't see any
reason how my first (fast debugging) patc
Strawman, mostly because all distros suck, the less patches you apply the
less likely things are to work, LFS is the most fragile thing out there,
etc. Hurp derp.
If you need a feature not in the distro, and it is needed because you have
installed something not in the distro or not new enough, you
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:36 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:18:07 +0200
> Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 12:55 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:42:21 +0200
> > > Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > >
> > > > After quite long period of inactivi
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 23:18:07 +0200
Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 12:55 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:42:21 +0200
> > Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> >
> > > After quite long period of inactivity, I updated graphical stack on my
> > > desktop/server.
> > >
> > >
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 12:55 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:42:21 +0200
> Maxim Levitsky wrote:
>
> > After quite long period of inactivity, I updated graphical stack on my
> > desktop/server.
> >
> > To say the truth, I did such update about month ago, but found out that
> >
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26195
--- Comment #15 from Michael Lothian 2010-03-05 13:04:29
PST ---
Was this what you were after?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assi
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Corbin Simpson
wrote:
> I was trying my hardest to not say anything, but...
>
> [blah blah Fedora blah Ubuntu blah staging blah blah]
>
> That said... Code probably is moving too fast inside nouveau. There is
> a bit of a wall to go through to get new patches upstr
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:42:21 +0200
Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> After quite long period of inactivity, I updated graphical stack on my
> desktop/server.
>
> To say the truth, I did such update about month ago, but found out that
> X refuses flatly to use DRI modules. I assumed that it was my mistake
After quite long period of inactivity, I updated graphical stack on my
desktop/server.
To say the truth, I did such update about month ago, but found out that
X refuses flatly to use DRI modules. I assumed that it was my mistake in
compilation process (although it is automated).
Now I repeat same
> So overall, I'd say that we spent about a month of developer time
> at least between jbarnes, ickle, and myself, on extending the execbuf
> interface to add a flag saying "dear kernel, please don't do this bit of
> work on this buffer, because I don't need it and it makes things slow."
Perhaps t
>From cec90cfdc0f20efcbcd266069a6a8234d230cc0b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alex Deucher
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 14:50:37 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] drm/radeon/kms: gfx init fixes for r6xx/r7xx
This fixes some issues with the last gfx init patch.
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher
---
drivers/gpu/drm/rad
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:21:29 +, Alan Cox wrote:
> Serious discussion point perhaps should be: is the libdrm so close to the
> kernel it ought to be in the same git tree ? Alternatively does it need
> to be easier to have multiple Nouveau libdrms autoselected according to
> the kernel side versi
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:46 AM, wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:04:34PM +0200, Daniel Stone wrote:
>>
>> So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
>> code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI
>> absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no
Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki
---
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_pm.c | 18 ++
1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_pm.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_pm.c
index 6b65f15..a2ea0be 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:04:14PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> You can only see it as malicious if you assume they ever had some reason
> to keep compatibility or had promised it somewhere. Quite the reverse
> happened, and they never asked to be upstream in the first place.
The reason why this threa
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:04:34PM +0200, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
> code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI
> absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no exceptions, ever? Cool,
> that worked really w
On 03/05/2010 10:17 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:37:18AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>> If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
>> does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the way it's breaking
>> and making kernel development difficult for
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 07:49 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Daniel Stone
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:41:43 +0200
>
> > I understand that you guys are upset about this, so maybe you'd like to
> > donate, say, 10% of your developer base to help out? That'd be pretty
> > ace.
>
> You have to supp
* Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On the bright side, all this hubbub sends a very positive message to the
> noveau development crew. Folks, your work is important. I'd be proud as a
> peacock :)
Heh, most definitely so!
Noveau really is a game-changer i think, it's a big break-through for Xorg
I
From: Jesse Barnes
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:02:44 -0800
> So from that perspective, the graphics stack is the most complex one in
> Linux by a long shot. It's even worse than if we had STREAMS
> networking with a ton of different modules up in userspace messing with
> protocol. :)
Maybe :-)
--
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:54:06 -0800 (PST)
David Miller wrote:
> From: Xavier Bestel
> Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:50:24 +0100
>
> > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 07:49 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Daniel Stone
> >> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:41:43 +0200
> >>
> >> > I understand that you guys are
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alan Cox
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:02:17 +
>
>>> You can't unleash something like this on a userbase of this magnitude
>>> and then throw your hands up in the air and say "I'm not willing to
>>> support this in a reasonable way."
>
From: Xavier Bestel
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:50:24 +0100
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 07:49 -0800, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Daniel Stone
>> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:41:43 +0200
>>
>> > I understand that you guys are upset about this, so maybe you'd like to
>> > donate, say, 10% of your develope
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 04:31:29PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:06:26 -0800 (PST)
> David Miller wrote:
>
> > From: Daniel Stone
> > Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:04:34 +0200
> >
> > > So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
> > > code for the Linux
Alan Cox wrote:
>> Look at who I screamed at. Dave Airlie. The guy who works for Red Hat. The
>> guy who is, as far as I know, effectively in charge of that whole
>> integration. Yeah, I realize that there are other people (Kyle?) involved,
>> and maybe Dave isn't as central as I think he is, bu
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
> code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI
> absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no exceptions, ever?
I think that's what David ended up saying, but
> Look at who I screamed at. Dave Airlie. The guy who works for Red Hat. The
> guy who is, as far as I know, effectively in charge of that whole
> integration. Yeah, I realize that there are other people (Kyle?) involved,
> and maybe Dave isn't as central as I think he is, but I learnt from last
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
> > So the watershed moment was _never_ the "Linus merged it". The watershed
> > moment was always "Fedora started shipping it". That's when the problems
> > with a standard upstream kernel started.
> >
> > Why is that so hard for people to understand?
>
>
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> FWIW, Option "ModulePath" in xorg.conf lets you more or less do this;
> the usual approach is to install your new server + drivers into a
> separate prefix.
The thing is, Xorg has - and I think for _very_ good reasons - deprecated
using xorg.conf at
> The thing I objected to, in the VERY BEGINNING in this thread, i the fact
> that the thing was done in such a way that it's basically impossible to
> support the old/new ABI at all!
What did you expect them to do. They said when you first forced a merge
that they would do this. They have no c
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:06:26 -0800 (PST)
David Miller wrote:
> From: Daniel Stone
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:04:34 +0200
>
> > So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
> > code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI
> > absolutely rock-solid st
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 07:53:46 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> >
> > Whereas everytime I wanted to do that with Xorg it was such a pain that
> > I want to keep away from that mess.
>
> Actually, take it from me: Xorg is _pleasant_ to test thes
> I think you need to be clearer about that. Your distribution packaging
> may not support that out of the box. There are a variety of ways to do
> almsot all of this including having entire parallel X installs for
> development work.
Sure, but each user must manually find out how to setup that, a
> So the watershed moment was _never_ the "Linus merged it". The watershed
> moment was always "Fedora started shipping it". That's when the problems
> with a standard upstream kernel started.
>
> Why is that so hard for people to understand?
So why are you screaming at the DRM and Nouveau peop
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> Yeah perhaps Fedora should have pushed an update that was smart enough to
> handle the Nouveau old/new ABI before the patch went upstream. Hindsight
> is an exact science.
Alan - it seems you're missing the whole point.
The thing I objected to, in the VE
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 08:44:07 +0100
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> It's a bit as if we split up the kernel into 'microkernel' components, did a
> VFS ABI, MM ABI, drivers ABI, scheduler ABI, networking ABI and arch ABIs,
> and
> then tried to develop them as separate components.
>
> If we did then then Li
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:03 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 11:14 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > Two wrong choices don't make a right.
> >
> > So unmerge it.
>
> That's what I told people I can do (I'd just revert that commit).
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
> > You can't unleash something like this on a userbase of this magnitude
> > and then throw your hands up in the air and say "I'm not willing to
> > support this in a reasonable way."
>
> Not to belabour the obvious - they didn't. Linus ordered them to merge
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:53:46AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> These days, there's a few dependencies you need to know about (I do agree
> that from a user perspective the thing might have been made a bit _too_
> modular)
Indeed, no argument here.
> That said, the _one_ thing I really w
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:56:10 +0100
Luca Barbieri wrote:
> It seems to me that Linus' technical argument is indeed being mostly ignored.
>
> While breaking the ABI is unfortunate, the real problem that Linus
> complained about is that you can't install several userspace versions
> side-by-side.
I
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, David Miller wrote:
>
> In fact, I argue that the moment nouveau went into Fedora and
> was turned on by default, the interfaces needed to be frozen.
Now, I agree that that would have been the optimal setup from a testing an
user standpoint, but I think it's a bit too stron
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:49:32AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Daniel Stone
> > I understand that you guys are upset about this, so maybe you'd like to
> > donate, say, 10% of your developer base to help out? That'd be pretty
> > ace.
>
> You have to support less than %10 of the amount of
From: Daniel Stone
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:04:34 +0200
> So you're saying that there's no way to develop any reasonable body of
> code for the Linux kernel without committing to keeping your ABI
> absolutely rock-solid stable for eternity, no exceptions, ever? Cool,
> that worked really well for
From: Alan Cox
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:02:17 +
>> You can't unleash something like this on a userbase of this magnitude
>> and then throw your hands up in the air and say "I'm not willing to
>> support this in a reasonable way."
>
> Not to belabour the obvious - they didn't. Linus ordered t
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:48:35AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Daniel Stone
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:26:12AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> >> In fact, I argue that the moment nouveau went into Fedora and
> >> was turned on by default, the interfaces needed to be frozen.
> >
> > That's
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 07:49:32 -0800 (PST)
David Miller wrote:
> From: Daniel Stone
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:41:43 +0200
>
> > I understand that you guys are upset about this, so maybe you'd like to
> > donate, say, 10% of your developer base to help out? That'd be pretty
> > ace.
>
> You have
> You can't unleash something like this on a userbase of this magnitude
> and then throw your hands up in the air and say "I'm not willing to
> support this in a reasonable way."
Not to belabour the obvious - they didn't. Linus ordered them to merge it.
> We're better than that.
If you consider
It seems to me that Linus' technical argument is indeed being mostly ignored.
While breaking the ABI is unfortunate, the real problem that Linus
complained about is that you can't install several userspace versions
side-by-side.
This means that if you install your new kernel and userspace, reboot
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
>
> Whereas everytime I wanted to do that with Xorg it was such a pain that
> I want to keep away from that mess.
Actually, take it from me: Xorg is _pleasant_ to test these days.
Ok, so that's partly compared to the mess it _used_ to be, but it's rea
From: Daniel Stone
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:41:43 +0200
> I understand that you guys are upset about this, so maybe you'd like to
> donate, say, 10% of your developer base to help out? That'd be pretty
> ace.
You have to support less than %10 of the amount of hardware we have to
support.
--
From: Daniel Stone
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:40:09 +0200
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:26:12AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>> In fact, I argue that the moment nouveau went into Fedora and
>> was turned on by default, the interfaces needed to be frozen.
>
> That's a matter for the Fedora kernel team
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 06:24 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 05:59 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > in which you merely remove the nouveau userspace component, and in which
> > I can't tell if you built nouveau into the kernel or not, but I assume
> > you didn't based on your previous post. Th
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:37:18AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
> does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the way it's breaking
> and making kernel development difficult for so many people matters to
> us.
Maybe the lesson
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:22:27AM -0500, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> > Why can't there be a 'Linus Torvalds' for Xorg accepting patches from
> > various
> > maintainers and keeping the whole thing tied up? Why can't it mimic the
> > 'make menucon
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 07:26:12AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Daniel Stone
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:37:18AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> >> If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
> >> does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the way it's break
> Personally I wouldn't have ever committed to that "user visible APIs
> can break cause it's in -stable." Because that's complete garbage
Staging has to have the no API rules. Read some of the stuff in there to
understand why or apply about 30 seconds of thought to what it would mean
to you.
Th
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26887
--- Comment #4 from Alex Deucher 2010-03-05 07:37:28 PST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> yes - could this be sideport related?
>
Not likely.
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receivi
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26347
--- Comment #21 from Marc 2010-03-05 07:34:18 PST ---
Rafał,
this seems to work. radeon_pm_info shows proper switching. Also I get some more
frames in glxgears (538->588) so I guess the gpu really runs faster now.
However, the "not in vbl fo
From: Daniel Stone
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:17:54 +0200
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:37:18AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>> If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
>> does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the way it's breaking
>> and making kernel development
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Carlos R. Mafra wrote:
> Why can't there be a 'Linus Torvalds' for Xorg accepting patches from various
> maintainers and keeping the whole thing tied up? Why can't it mimic the
> 'make menuconfig' way of selecting what to compile to have the guarantee that
> the who
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 06:37 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alan Cox
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:38:34 +
>
> >> The conclusion is crystal clear, breaking an ABI via a "flag day"
> >> cleanup/feature/etc is:
> >
> > Ingo go read the staging Kconfig. It's crystal clear, and lots of vendor
>
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, "C. Bergström" wrote:
>
> staging != stable
This really is being repeated, over and over. But it's irrelevant.
It's irrelevant because it's just a bad _excuse_.
That driver is used in production environments. That's _reality_. The
whole "staging" thing is nothing more than
From: Alan Cox
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 15:09:34 +
> I think you miss a bigger picture ?
>
> If Fedora hadn't merged it then it wouldn't have gotten to the state of
> usability it had. If Fedora hadn't merged it then several hundred
> thousand users wouldn't have had useful working machines.
I
> If it effects such a large number of people, which this noveau thing
> does, it's entirely relevant to everyone. And the way it's breaking
> and making kernel development difficult for so many people matters to
> us.
>
> It's about the tester base, and this breakage shrinks the tester base
> co
From: Alan Cox
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:38:34 +
>> The conclusion is crystal clear, breaking an ABI via a "flag day"
>> cleanup/feature/etc is:
>
> Ingo go read the staging Kconfig. It's crystal clear, and lots of vendor
> junk that is in there being cleaned up it would be *insane* to keep
> Why does the X community not understand simple library versioning?
Why does Linus Torvalds not understand the Kconfig of his own staging
directory ?
Alan
--
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software too
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:32:02 -0500
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 02:04 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > "Please note that these drivers are under heavy development, may or may
> > not work, and may contain userspace interfaces that most likely will be
> > changed in the near future."
>
> Ship
> So man up, guys. Face the problem, rather than say "well, it's staging",
> or "well, we can revert it". Neither of those really solve anything in the
> short run _or_ the long run.
Linus stop and think for a minute instead. Maybe a timeline would help
Nouveau development star
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:44:07AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Yeah. I've seen a few other bad arguments as well:
>
>'exploding test matrix'
>
> This is often the result of _another_ bad technical decision:
> over-modularization.
>
> Xorg, mesa/libdrm and the kernel DRM drivers pretty sh
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:00:30 +0100, "Carlos R. Mafra" said:
> Why can't there be a 'Linus Torvalds' for Xorg accepting patches from various
> maintainers and keeping the whole thing tied up? Why can't it mimic the
> 'make menuconfig' way of selecting what to compile to have the guarantee that
> th
> The conclusion is crystal clear, breaking an ABI via a "flag day"
> cleanup/feature/etc is:
Ingo go read the staging Kconfig. It's crystal clear, and lots of vendor
junk that is in there being cleaned up it would be *insane* to keep their
old APIs
See there's a bigger offence than breaking an
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26887
Marc changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marvi...@gmx.de
--- Comment #3 from Marc 201
On 03/04/2010 05:59 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 17:21 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>>> # sed -i 's/\.*/& nouveau.modeset=0/g' /etc/grub.conf
>>
>> Never tried this part.
>
> The bug I'm assuming you're referring to is
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=519298
>
> i
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26887
--- Comment #2 from Jerome Glisse 2010-03-05 03:07:44
PST ---
Does this happen all the time ?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the assig
On Fri 5.Mar'10 at 8:44:07 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Yeah. I've seen a few other bad arguments as well:
>
>'exploding test matrix'
>
> This is often the result of _another_ bad technical decision:
> over-modularization.
>
> Xorg, mesa/libdrm and the kernel DRM drivers pretty share th
This simplify and improve GPU reset for R1XX-R6XX hw, it's
not 100% reliable here are result:
- R1XX/R2XX works bunch of time in a row, sometimes it
seems it can work indifinitly
- R3XX/R3XX the most unreliable one, sometimes you will be
able to reset few times, sometimes not even once
- R5XX m
Patch rename gpu_reset to asic_reset in prevision of having
gpu_reset doing more stuff than just basic asic reset.
Signed-off-by: Jerome Glisse
---
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/evergreen.c |2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r100.c |6 ++--
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/r300.c |6
This patches improve the GPU reset, many time i able to successfully
reset the GPU and carry on operation, note that after a reset you
will likely see corrpution on the screen. Hope is that we should now
be able to capture faulty command stream.
I still need to do a full retesting with this patch
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26496
--- Comment #8 from Michel Dänzer 2010-03-05 02:08:30 PST
---
IIRC I was using the post radeon-rewrite driver without KMS for a while on my
PowerBook, and I don't remember issues like this. So with some luck, this is a
regression between the
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 23:44, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> > The conclusion is crystal clear, breaking an ABI via a "flag day"
>> > cleanup/feature/etc is:
>> >
>> > ?- wrong
>> >
>> > ?- harmful
>> >
>> > ?- limits the d
Hi Eric,
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 15:34 -0800, Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:59:52 +0200, Surbhi Palande
> wrote:
> > BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/515246
> >
> > Sony VGN-BX196VP and Dell Inspiron 700m report lid status as closed
> > when it is open. This leads to a "no c
On Thursday 04 March 2010 18:53:32 Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >
> > I'm not saying it doesn't happen in other drivers from time to time, but
> > when it does its treated as regression, for nouveau and STAGING that
> > isn't what the Nouveau project (which
On 03/04/2010 01:32 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 02:04 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> "Please note that these drivers are under heavy development, may or may
>> not work, and may contain userspace interfaces that most likely will be
>> changed in the near future."
>
> Shipping it as the de
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> And if we end up having people bisecting back and forth, I will hate that
> f*cking nouveau driver even more.
Would it help to tag the flag day commit? At least that would make it
trivial for bisecters to see whether each step in a bisection
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 03:53:32PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Even if Stepane doesn't care, people inside RedHat/Fedora must care. Are
> you guys simply planning on never supporting F12 with 2.6.34? I'd expect
> it to be a _major_ pain to have that whole hardcoded "X and kernel must
> alway
97 matches
Mail list logo
