Re: xserver: Branch 'master'
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 14:37 -0800, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
commit 2db7b66863ae6055c3ce13c88b36d620de8a4d75
Author: Maarten Maathuis madman2...@gmail.com
Date: Fri Dec 19 23:12:37 2008 +0100
exa: a few cleanups
- Some warnings silenced.
- Some whitespace cleanup.
diff --git a/exa/exa.c b/exa/exa.c
index 6dfde4c..7b732eb 100644
--- a/exa/exa.c
+++ b/exa/exa.c
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ exaGetPixmapOffset(PixmapPtr pPix)
{
ExaScreenPriv (pPix-drawable.pScreen);
-return ((unsigned long)ExaGetPixmapAddress(pPix) -
+return ((unsigned long)(unsigned long *)ExaGetPixmapAddress(pPix) -
(unsigned long)pExaScr-info-memoryBase);
This looks wrong... what's the problem you're trying to solve here?
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer |http://www.vmware.com
Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
RADEON(0): No valid MMIO address - X doesn't start
I have a multiseat station with two graphics cards: AGP and PCI. Lately, I replaced the AGP nvidia - now, the machine is equipped with two ATI cards: 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV350 AR [Radeon 9600] 01:00.1 Display controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV350 AR [Radeon 9600] (Secondary) 02:05.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV280 [Radeon 9200 PRO] (rev 01) 02:05.1 Display controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV280 [Radeon 9200 PRO] (Secondary) (rev 01) Unfortunately, X doesn't start on the PCI card any more: (II) Setting vga for screen 0. (EE) RADEON(0): No valid MMIO address (II) UnloadModule: radeon (EE) Screen(s) found, but none have a usable configuration. Fatal server error: no screens found What does it mean and how can I fix it? Below, a full log: X.Org X Server 1.5.3 Release Date: 5 November 2008 X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0 Build Operating System: Linux_2.6.22.18-server-1mdv Mandriva Current Operating System: Linux dom 2.6.28-rc7 #1 SMP Sat Dec 20 12:44:00 CET 2008 i686 Build Date: 18 December 2008 11:42:49AM Before reporting problems, check http://qa.mandriva.com to make sure that you have the latest version. 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.1.log, Time: Sat Dec 20 13:12:54 2008 (==) Using config file: /etc/X11/xorg.conf (**) Option defaultserverlayout layout1 (++) ServerLayout seat1 (**) |--Screen Screen1 (1) (**) | |--Monitor monitor1 (**) | |--Device device1 (**) |--Input Device Mouse1 (**) |--Input Device Keyboard1 (**) Option AllowMouseOpenFail true (==) Automatically adding devices (==) Automatically enabling devices (==) No FontPath specified. Using compiled-in default. (==) FontPath set to: catalogue:/etc/X11/fontpath.d (==) ModulePath set to /usr/lib/xorg/modules (II) Open ACPI successful (/var/run/acpid.socket) (II) Loader magic: 0x8200640 (II) Module ABI versions: X.Org ANSI C Emulation: 0.4 X.Org Video Driver: 4.1 X.Org XInput driver : 2.1 X.Org Server Extension : 1.1 X.Org Font Renderer : 0.6 (II) Loader running on linux (++) using VT number 8 (II) System resource ranges: [0] -1 0
[PATCH] Don't release passive grabs unless all buttons are up
I can't see any reason why we would treat buttons 5 differently. This patch simplifies client code by eliminating the need to call XGrabDevice after a button has been pressed and prevents race conditions that could result from that. Tom From cc4a046ac387bd03c1cba1d017bdc1ced75b44d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Jaeger thjae...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:17:02 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Don't release grabs unless all buttons are up Previously, only buttons = 5 would count here. --- Xi/exevents.c |2 +- dix/events.c |2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Xi/exevents.c b/Xi/exevents.c index 083bb2f..6d4a146 100644 --- a/Xi/exevents.c +++ b/Xi/exevents.c @@ -1069,7 +1069,7 @@ ProcessOtherEvent(xEventPtr xE, DeviceIntPtr device, int count) xE-u.u.detail = key; return; } -if (!b-state device-deviceGrab.fromPassiveGrab) +if (!b-buttonsDown device-deviceGrab.fromPassiveGrab) deactivateDeviceGrab = TRUE; } diff --git a/dix/events.c b/dix/events.c index d7618c2..bd56f3b 100644 --- a/dix/events.c +++ b/dix/events.c @@ -3846,7 +3846,7 @@ ProcessPointerEvent (xEvent *xE, DeviceIntPtr mouse, int count) if (xE-u.u.detail == 0) return; filters[mouse-id][Motion_Filter(butc)] = MotionNotify; - if (!butc-state mouse-deviceGrab.fromPassiveGrab) + if (!butc-buttonsDown mouse-deviceGrab.fromPassiveGrab) deactivateGrab = TRUE; break; default: -- 1.5.6.3 ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Problems with latest GIT head xorg and Intel 945GM
Hello, I've built the latest master branches mesa, xserver, xf86-video-intel and the dependencies using the jhbuild tool. Also, I've tried building drm modules from the modesetting-gem branch, but i915 module is not compiling there, make is not building it. So I've tested with the latest 2.6.28-rc9 git, using the drm modules form this kernel. Should I use another X server fails starting up, sometimes crashing the machine with a blank screen. I've used an empty xorg.conf file, but the behavior is the same when using a working (in Debian sid X server) configuration. Log is attached. Vedran xorg.crash Description: Binary data ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Bad 2D performance with intel driver on Mobile GM965/GL960
Hmm, I guess 11.1 uses intel-2.5, which has (at leat on my 945GM) quite a number of performance problems. Xorg-7.3 (xserver 1.5.x) also has quite a bad performance bug for dixLookupPrivate which will only be fixed for 1.6 because of API issues. If you don't use a xrender-based composition manager, reverting to XAA could probably help: Section Device Identifier Videocard0 Driver intel Option AccelMethod XAA Option XAANoOffscreenPixmaps true EndSection - Clemens ___ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Maximum Screen Size for intel driver
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote:
I'm running into this intel driver limit on a i945GM card:
xrandr: screen cannot be larger than 1280x1824 (desired size 1920x1824)
I've recompiled from source from
git://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel but it
seems at
least the master branch still has this problem. Are there plans to work
around
this problem? Is there a branch containing fixes for it?
I know it's possible because in Windows this card happily drives this
monitor
at 1920x1200 for a total desktop size of 3200x1200.
I'm not sure if this is related but I see the following code in
i830_driver.c:
/* See i830_exa.c comments for why we limit the framebuffer size like
this.
*/
if (IS_I965G(pI830)) {
max_width = 8192;
max_height = 8192;
} else {
max_width = 2048;
max_height = 2048;
}
xf86CrtcSetSizeRange (pScrn, 320, 200, max_width, max_height);
There is no such related comments in i830_exa.c as the comment here claims.
(In fact there are hardly any comments in i830_exa.c at all). Is this code
just obsolete? What will happen if I just put a more reasonable set of
values here?
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Re: Maximum Screen Size for intel driver
Dear Greg,
Am Samstag, den 20.12.2008, 20:38 + schrieb Greg Stark:
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu wrote:
I'm running into this intel driver limit on a i945GM card:
xrandr: screen cannot be larger than 1280x1824 (desired size
1920x1824)
I've recompiled from source from
git://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/xorg/driver/xf86-video-intel
but it seems at
least the master branch still has this problem. Are there
plans to work around
this problem? Is there a branch containing fixes for it?
I know it's possible because in Windows this card happily
drives this monitor
at 1920x1200 for a total desktop size of 3200x1200.
I'm not sure if this is related but I see the following code in
i830_driver.c:
/* See i830_exa.c comments for why we limit the framebuffer size
like this.
*/
if (IS_I965G(pI830)) {
max_width = 8192;
max_height = 8192;
} else {
max_width = 2048;
max_height = 2048;
}
xf86CrtcSetSizeRange (pScrn, 320, 200, max_width, max_height);
There is no such related comments in i830_exa.c as the comment here
claims. (In fact there are hardly any comments in i830_exa.c at all).
Is this code just obsolete? What will happen if I just put a more
reasonable set of values here?
I heard, there are some technical limitations to it in the
implementation.
I think [1] is the way to go. (Look for Virtual.)
Thanks,
Paul
[1]
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEeePC/HowTo/Configure#head-5002c433e6ebf8a0a8fae6ae545cc32789bdae3f
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
