On Sat, 2003-09-13 at 05:45, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 12:19:44PM +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 12:35:30PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 07:22, Ian Romanick wrote:
> > > > Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > CVSROOT:
Maybe the printed strings in your patch should
mention the "SE" so that no one gets confused.
Anything else looks smooth to me right now.
-Alex.
> -Original Message-
> From: Michel Dänzer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 22:08
> To: #NGUYEN THANH NAM#
> Cc:
On Sat, 2003-09-13 at 17:38, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
> In the "Device" section of your XF86Config-4 file, you should add the
> following line:
>
> ChipID 0x4242
One of the other 9200 IDs he mentioned would probably be better for him.
> My Device section looks like:
>
> Section "Device"
>
On Sat, 2003-09-13 at 17:13, #NGUYEN THANH NAM# wrote:
>
> I bought a Creative 3D Blaster 5 RX9200 SE (uses ATI Radeon 9200 SE chip). When I
> did a lspci the revision shown was 0x5964 (and there was another one too, I guess it
> is for secondary display). However, the radeon driver only support
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 23:12, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 03:58:35PM +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 17:08, Ville Syrjälä
> >
> > > > http://rose.clear.bash.sh/~rah/planeshift-dodgey-lighting.jpeg
> > >
> > > This is mentioned in the planeshift buglist so I'm no
In the "Device" section of your XF86Config-4 file, you should add the
following line:
ChipID 0x4242
My Device section looks like:
Section "Device"
Identifier "Radeon"
Driver "radeon"
BusID "PCI:1:0:0"
Option "AGPMode" "4"
Option "AGPSize" "128"
Hi,
I bought a Creative 3D Blaster 5 RX9200 SE (uses ATI Radeon 9200 SE chip). When I did
a lspci the revision shown was 0x5964 (and there was another one too, I guess it is
for secondary display). However, the radeon driver only supports 0x5960 to 0x5963 (I
checked against the latest radeon-pc
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 12:19:44PM +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 12:35:30PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 07:22, Ian Romanick wrote:
> > > Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > >
> > > > CVSROOT:/cvsroot/dri
> > > > Module name:xc
> > > > Repository:
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 07:22, Ian Romanick wrote:
> Alan Hourihane wrote:
>
> > CVSROOT:/cvsroot/dri
> > Module name:xc
> > Repository: xc/xc/
> > Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/09/12 04:23:10
>
> On which server are you doing these commits? From the looks of it,
> you're doi
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 12:35:30PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 07:22, Ian Romanick wrote:
> > Alan Hourihane wrote:
> >
> > > CVSROOT: /cvsroot/dri
> > > Module name: xc
> > > Repository: xc/xc/
> > > Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/09/12 04:23:10
> >
Okay there is one in my a/c on freedesktop.org with Sep 12 00:20 on it,
but I'm sure it is from the backup server not the primary.. so it is
probably missing 24 hrs of commits.. the history file in CVSROOT is
probably the best place to start...
god knows how long it will be until sf update the t
[This e-mail has been automatically generated.Please do not reply to this
email- if you want to comment on the bug, go to the URL shown below and enter
your comments there.]
You have one or more bugs assigned to you in the Bugzilla
bugsystem (http://bugs.xfree86.org/) that require
attention
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Alan Hourihane wrote:
>> > Do DRI developers need to worry about that ?
>>
>> It's no problem for me personally, no idea about other developers, but
>> what about users?
>
>They didn't have IPv6 before, so if it doesn't work now, there's still
>no problem for users.
The pro
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 00:01, Mike Mestnik wrote:
>
> The main goal is to get a working DRI that has the new API, and maby some gatos
> bells and
> whistles. I'm assuming you read my post that recent DRI is to different from gatos.
> My plan was
> to diff gatos and DRI and weed ought all the c
14 matches
Mail list logo
