Re: [Fwd: Re: OOPS in agpgart (2.4.13, 2.4.15pre7)]

[Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:43:47 +0100
Nicolas Aspert <Nicolas.Aspert@epfl.ch> wrote:

> > If there are no further complaints we should submit the patch. What do you
> > think Nicolas?
> > 
> 
> Well, I prefer my version on the patch (of course :-), 

Guess what: I expected that :-)

>and I find it 
> cleaner. Let me explain why : by just adding the 'break', you will fall 
> back to the generic initialization routines, which work in most of the 
> cases. However, if you look deeper the code & the specs, they are not 
> really that good.

I re-read the code according to your notes. Since I do not have the docs at
hand I am going to trust your word and indeed believe your patch is cleaner.
Only a personal add-on: make it a bit less verbosely talking to the user ;-) I
think we do not need to tell him three times he has i830. One line should be
sufficient. But obviously thats nothing of real importance.


> However, before submitting the patch, I would like to hear from Didier 
> about the X server stuff.
> Does it still hard-locks when you start it ? If testgart works (which 
> seems to be the case... btw, yes the 8MB alloced by the program are 
> normal) and X locks, this would look more like a DRI/X problem (I saw 
> some problems w. Radeon cards on the dri-devel list, which do not seem 
> to be fully solved yet)

This really looks like an X issue to me and not related to agp.

Thanks for your support, Nicolas.

Regards,
Stephan

PS: you propose the patch to l & m :-) we killed yet another oops.