Re: xorg not working on 2.6.24-1 (smp and single)

2008-07-25 Thread Angelo Rossi
I'm running lenny.

On Tuesday 15 July 2008 09:07:05 Frans Pop wrote:
> Howard Eisenberger wrote:
> > I just came across this message and didn't see a response.
> > Did you find a fix?
> >
> >> X.Org X Server 1.4.0.90
>
> Are you running Debian? 1.4.0 is not a current version in either testing
> or unstable.
>
> >> Current Operating System: Linux ULTRA5 2.6.24-1-sparc64-smp #1 SMP Thu
>
> This is quite likely in some way related to:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/3/147
>
> I don't think you will get any real help with this unless you first try
> with at least kernel 2.6.26 (which includes the change referenced in that
> thread) and xserver 1.4.2.
>
> Cheers,
> FJP



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: xorg not working on 2.6.24-1 (smp and single)

2008-07-15 Thread Julien Cristau
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 09:07:05 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:

> Howard Eisenberger wrote:
> > I just came across this message and didn't see a response.
> > Did you find a fix?
> > 
> >> X.Org X Server 1.4.0.90
> 
> Are you running Debian? 1.4.0 is not a current version in either testing 
> or unstable.

The log had this line just below:
Build Operating System: Linux Debian (xorg-server 2:1.4.1~git20080517-1)

:)

> >> Current Operating System: Linux ULTRA5 2.6.24-1-sparc64-smp #1 SMP Thu
> 
> This is quite likely in some way related to: 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/3/147
> 
> I don't think you will get any real help with this unless you first try 
> with at least kernel 2.6.26 (which includes the change referenced in that 
> thread) and xserver 1.4.2.
> 
AIUI that change was made after 2.6.25, so the problem with 2.6.24 is
probably different?

If I understand correctly, the change mentioned in that thread will
break X server versions < 1.5 on kernels > 2.6.25 (which sounds like it
would be a problem for lenny if we go for .26, but anyway).

The problem with 2.6.24 (xf86MapDomainMem() failure) looks like the one
that's been reported as bug #488669, for which help would be
appreciated.  Knowing what kernel broke it would be a good start, I
guess.

Cheers,
Julien


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: xorg not working on 2.6.24-1 (smp and single)

2008-07-15 Thread Frans Pop
Howard Eisenberger wrote:
> I just came across this message and didn't see a response.
> Did you find a fix?
> 
>> X.Org X Server 1.4.0.90

Are you running Debian? 1.4.0 is not a current version in either testing 
or unstable.

>> Current Operating System: Linux ULTRA5 2.6.24-1-sparc64-smp #1 SMP Thu

This is quite likely in some way related to: 
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/3/147

I don't think you will get any real help with this unless you first try 
with at least kernel 2.6.26 (which includes the change referenced in that 
thread) and xserver 1.4.2.

Cheers,
FJP


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: xorg not working on 2.6.24-1 (smp and single)

2008-07-14 Thread Howard Eisenberger
I just came across this message and didn't see a response.
Did you find a fix?

On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 07:40:13PM +0200, Angelo Rossi wrote:
> 
> I got this error in debian linux sparc 64 (ultra 5 platform):
> 
> X: warning; process set to priority -1 instead of requested priority 0
> 
> X.Org X Server 1.4.0.90
> Release Date: 5 September 2007
> X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0
> Build Operating System: Linux Debian (xorg-server 2:1.4.1~git20080517-1)
> Current Operating System: Linux ULTRA5 2.6.24-1-sparc64-smp #1 SMP Thu May 8 
> 18:15:33 UTC 2008 sparc64
> Build Date: 18 May 2008  02:46:04PM
> 
> Before reporting problems, check http://wiki.x.org
> to make sure that you have the latest version.
> Module Loader present
> Markers: (--) probed, (**) from config file, (==) default setting,
> (++) from command line, (!!) notice, (II) informational,
> (WW) warning, (EE) error, (NI) not implemented, (??) unknown.
> (==) Log file: "/var/log/Xorg.0.log", Time: Sat May 31 13:12:34 2008
> (==) Using config file: "/etc/X11/xorg.conf"
> (II) Module "ddc" already built-in
> mmap failure: Invalid argument
> 
> Fatal server error:
> xf86MapDomainMem():  mmap() failure
> 
> XIO:  fatal IO error 54 (Connection reset by peer) on X server ":0.0"
>   after 0 requests (0 known processed) with 0 events remaining.
> 
> 
> The kernel suite is: uname -a
> 
> Linux ULTRA5 2.6.24-1-sparc64-smp #1 SMP Thu May 8 18:15:33 UTC 2008 sparc64 
> GNU/Linux

I have the same problem on my Ultra5 with onboard ATI graphics card
moving from kernel 2.6.21 and 2.6.22 to 2.6.24 or 2.6.25.

I believe that this is a PCI problem that that has been mentioned here
and decribed in detail at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01094.html

http://www.archivum.info/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/2008-06/msg00929.html

My /var/log/Xorg.0.log under 2.6.25 looks like this:

 
X.Org X Server 1.4.0.90
Release Date: 5 September 2007
X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0
Build Operating System: Linux Debian (xorg-server 2:1.4.1~git20080517-1)
Current Operating System: Linux ultra5 2.6.25-2-sparc64 #2 Fri Jun 27 
 05:32:02 UTC 2008 sparc64
Build Date: 18 May 2008  02:46:04PM

(II) MACH64: Driver for ATI Mach64 chipsets
(II) Primary Device is: PCI 01:02:0
(--) Chipset ATI 3D Rage Pro found
(II) resource ranges after xf86ClaimFixedResources() call:
[0] -1  1   0xa000 - 0xa0ff (0x100) MX[B]
[1] -1  1   0x8000 - 0x8fff (0x1000) MX[B]
[2] -1  1   0x6000 - 0x6fff (0x1000) MX[B]
[3] -1  1   0x4000 - 0x4fff (0x1000) MX[B]
[4] -1  1   0x2000 - 0x20ff (0x100) MX[B]
[5] -1  1   0xe000 - 0xe01f (0x20) MX[B]
[6] -1  1   0xf100 - 0xf100 (0x1) MX[B]
[7] -1  1   0xf000 - 0xf000 (0x1) MX[B]
[8] -1  1   0xe102 - 0xe102 (0x1) MX[B](B)
[9] -1  1   0xe200 - 0xe2000fff (0x1000) MX[B](B)
[10] -1 1   0xe100 - 0xe1ff (0x100) MX[B](B)
[11] -1 1   0x0400 - 0x04ff (0x100) IX[B]
[12] -1 1   0x00c00020 - 0x00c0002f (0x10) IX[B]
[13] -1 1   0x00c00018 - 0x00c0001b (0x4) IX[B]
[14] -1 1   0x00c00010 - 0x00c00017 (0x8) IX[B]
[15] -1 1   0x00c8 - 0x00cb (0x4) IX[B]
[16] -1 1   0x00c0 - 0x00c7 (0x8) IX[B]
(WW) INVALID MEM ALLOCATION b: 0xe100 e: 0xe1ff correcting
(II) window:
(II) resSize:
[0] -1  1   0x - 0x (0x0) MX[B]
(II) window fixed:
(WW) INVALID MEM ALLOCATION b: 0xe200 e: 0xe2000fff correcting
(II) window:
(II) resSize:
[0] -1  1   0x - 0x (0x0) MX[B]
(II) window fixed:
(II) resource ranges after probing:
[0] -1  1   0x - 0x (0x0) MX[B](B)
[1] -1  1   0x - 0x (0x0) MX[B](B)
[2] -1  1   0xa000 - 0xa0ff (0x100) MX[B]
[3] -1  1   0x8000 - 0x8fff (0x1000) MX[B]
[4] -1  1   0x6000 - 0x6fff (0x1000) MX[B]
[5] -1  1   0x4000 - 0x4fff (0x1000) MX[B]
[6] -1  1   0x2000 - 0x20ff (0x100) MX[B]
[7] -1  1   0xe000 - 0xe01f (0x20) MX[B]
[8] -1  1   0xf100 - 0xf100 (0x1) MX[B]
[9] -1  1   0xf000 - 0xf000 (0x1) MX[B]
[10] -1 1   0xe102 - 0xe102 (0x1) MX[B](B)
[11] 0  1   0x000a - 0x000a (0x1) MS[B]
[12] 0  1   0x000b - 0x000b7fff (0x8000) MS[B]
[13] 0  1   0x000b8000 - 0x000b (0x8000) MS[B]
[14] -1 1   0x0400 - 0x04ff (0x100) IX[B]
[15] -1 1   0x00c00020 - 0x00c0002f (0x10) IX[B]
[16] -1 1   0x00c00018 - 0x00c0001b (0x4) IX[B]
[17] -1 1   0x00c00010 - 0x00c00017 (0x8) IX[B]