https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89730
--- Comment #26 from poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to andrew p. from comment #25)
(In reply to Ilia Mirkin from comment #24)
It's good that it does that.
Is it so good that newest nouveau version will resolve this bug?
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89730
--- Comment #28 from andrew p. pan.pav@gmail.com ---
(In reply to poma from comment #27)
Here, that's all, no wrapper.
lightdm-gtk-greeter.desktop must be ok:
Exec=xtrace -b -o /tmp/xtrace.log lightdm-gtk-greeter
--
You are receiving
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89730
--- Comment #27 from poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to poma from comment #26)
(In reply to andrew p. from comment #25)
(In reply to Ilia Mirkin from comment #24)
It's good that it does that.
Is it so good that newest
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89730
--- Comment #25 from andrew p. pan.pav@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Ilia Mirkin from comment #24)
It's good that it does that.
Is it so good that newest nouveau version will resolve this bug?
About xtrace, for poma:
Guys, if any of you know
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89730
--- Comment #29 from poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to andrew p. from comment #28)
(In reply to poma from comment #27)
Here, that's all, no wrapper.
lightdm-gtk-greeter.desktop must be ok:
Exec=xtrace -b -o
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89730
--- Comment #30 from poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com ---
# which xtrace
/bin/xtrace
# rpm -qf /bin/xtrace
glibc-utils-2.20-8.fc21.x86_64
# yum -q search xtrace
= N/S matched: xtrace
==
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89730
--- Comment #31 from poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com ---
Review Request: xtrace - Utility for tracing X11 protocol for debugging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067665#c18
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the
On 28 May 2015 at 16:40, Pierre Moreau pierre.mor...@free.fr wrote:
Changes since v1:
* Factorise testing of the 3 different _DSMs presence with a single function
Not overly important, but this part could be split out into an earlier
commit, keeping this commit just for adding the gmux support?
On 28 May 2015 at 16:40, Pierre Moreau pierre.mor...@free.fr wrote:
Most _DSM will return an integer value of 0x8002 when given an unknown
UUID, revision ID or function ID. Checking locally allows us to differentiate
that case from other ACPI errors, and to not report a failed to evaluate
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89730
--- Comment #33 from poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com ---
# cat /usr/share/xgreeters/lightdm-gtk-greeter.desktop.old
[Desktop Entry]
Name=LightDM GTK+ Greeter
Comment=This runs the GTK+ greeter, it should only be run from LightDM
Exec=x11trace -b
On 28 May 2015 at 18:52, Pierre Moreau pierre.mor...@free.fr wrote:
Hi Dave,
- Mail original -
Changes since v1:
[...]
diff --git a/drm/nouveau/nouveau_vga.c b/drm/nouveau/nouveau_vga.c
index 9a6328f..7b13804 100644
--- a/drm/nouveau/nouveau_vga.c
+++ b/drm/nouveau/nouveau_vga.c
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89730
--- Comment #32 from poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to poma from comment #31)
Review Request: xtrace - Utility for tracing X11 protocol for debugging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067665#c18
# yum -q erase xtrace
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89730
--- Comment #35 from poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com ---
Created attachment 116137
-- https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=116137action=edit
x11trace.log
x11trace -D :11 -d :0 -b -o /var/log/lightdm/x11trace.log
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89730
--- Comment #34 from poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com ---
Created attachment 116136
-- https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=116136action=edit
lightdm and greeter log
/usr/share/xgreeters/lightdm-gtk-greeter.desktop
[Desktop Entry]
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89730
poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #116137|text/plain
I wasn't sure how to insert this one into the flow, if I should make it a patch
4.5 or not. I went with patch 5, so all the following patches are incremented
by 1 compared to the v1, sorry about that.
What should be the way to go?
Pierre
On 28 May 2015, at 08:40, Pierre Moreau
Changes since v1:
* Factorise testing of the 3 different _DSMs presence with a single function
* Check for gmux in nouveau_switcheroo_set_state
* Change some comments and messages that were referring explicitly to Optimus
whereas they were also testing the mux and gmux _DSMs
Signed-off-by:
This makes it clearer when reading the function name, as well as following the
names of related ACPI functions.
Changes since v1:
* Fix typo in commit message
* Slightly reformulate the commit message to be clearer
Signed-off-by: Pierre Moreau pierre.mor...@free.fr
---
This is especially true when variables or functions are just called dsm without
specifying the v1.
Changes since v1:
* Fix typo in commit explanation
* Change has_dsm to has_mux in nouveau_dsm_detect
Signed-off-by: Pierre Moreau pierre.mor...@free.fr
---
drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c | 72
Signed-off-by: Pierre Moreau pierre.mor...@free.fr
---
drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c | 8 +---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c b/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c
index e18fbeb..3f01067 100644
--- a/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c
+++
Changes since v1:
* Re-write the whole patch to detect available _DSMs when we enable them rather
than on each loop run
Signed-off-by: Pierre Moreau pierre.mor...@free.fr
---
drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c | 27 ++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff
Changes since v1:
* Fix check for result being not NULL in nouveau_evaluate_optimus_dsm
Signed-off-by: Pierre Moreau pierre.mor...@free.fr
---
drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c | 10 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c
Most _DSM will return an integer value of 0x8002 when given an unknown
UUID, revision ID or function ID. Checking locally allows us to differentiate
that case from other ACPI errors, and to not report a failed to evaluate _DSM
if 0x8002 is returned which was confusing.
Changes since v1:
*
Signed-off-by: Pierre Moreau pierre.mor...@free.fr
---
drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c b/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c
index 01dbf1d..b837ab1 100644
--- a/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c
+++
Signed-off-by: Pierre Moreau pierre.mor...@free.fr
---
drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c | 8
drm/nouveau/nouveau_vga.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c b/drm/nouveau/nouveau_acpi.c
index 44a7328..edc4b94 100644
---
Hi Dave,
- Mail original -
Changes since v1:
[...]
diff --git a/drm/nouveau/nouveau_vga.c b/drm/nouveau/nouveau_vga.c
index 9a6328f..7b13804 100644
--- a/drm/nouveau/nouveau_vga.c
+++ b/drm/nouveau/nouveau_vga.c
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ nouveau_switcheroo_set_state(struct pci_dev *pdev,
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=77003
Roman Spirgi the@gmx.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90276
Arthur Heymans arthurphilippeheym...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[NVE6] screen freeze with |[NVE4]
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89730
--- Comment #23 from andrew p. pan.pav@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Ilia Mirkin from comment #22)
Ben tells me that nouveau_bo_wait (called by nouveau_bo_map) ends up doing
this anyways. Oh well.
Is it bad, right? So, no hope in the near
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89730
--- Comment #24 from Ilia Mirkin imir...@alum.mit.edu ---
(In reply to andrew p. from comment #23)
(In reply to Ilia Mirkin from comment #22)
Ben tells me that nouveau_bo_wait (called by nouveau_bo_map) ends up doing
this anyways. Oh well.
30 matches
Mail list logo
