From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757831Ab0GBVyS (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:54:18 -0400 Received: from mail1-out1.atlantis.sk ([80.94.52.55]:59833 "EHLO mail.atlantis.sk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752370Ab0GBVyQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:54:16 -0400 From: Ondrej Zary To: Eric Anholt Subject: Re: [PATCH] [resend] intel_agp: Don't oops with zero stolen memory Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 23:54:05 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: David Airlie , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <201006161013.53612.linux@rainbow-software.org> <201007022159.21848.linux@rainbow-software.org> <87zky9iou7.fsf@pollan.anholt.net> In-Reply-To: <87zky9iou7.fsf@pollan.anholt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201007022354.07194.linux@rainbow-software.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 02 July 2010 22:57:36 Eric Anholt wrote: > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 21:59:20 +0200, Ondrej Zary wrote: > > On Friday 02 July 2010 00:44:39 Eric Anholt wrote: > > > On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:13:52 +0200, Ondrej Zary > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > When "onboard video memory" is set do "disabled" in BIOS on Asus > > > > P4P800-VM board (i865G), kernel oopses with memory corruption: > > > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28430 > > > > > > > > Fix that by cleanly aborting the initialization. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ondrej Zary > > > > > > I haven't seen a system with that option before. Is the integrated > > > graphics still supposed to work at that point, or is it "graphics is > > > disabled."? What do other OSes do here? > > > > Testing it right now with Windows XP. Integrated graphics works as > > secondary only when the "onboard video memory" is set to "disabled"! If > > anything other is set (e.g. 1MB or 32MB), the driver does not load (code > > 10). > > OK, I was thinking in that case that we should fix the AGP driver's math > so that it correctly set up a chip with no stolen memory allocation. On > the other hand, I don't think we know what the correct math is, so maybe > we should just go ahead with disabling AGP in that case. Someone from Intel should know how to fix this properly. -- Ondrej Zary