Re: 2.6.16-rc3: more regressions

From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Mon Feb 13 2006 - 13:52:59 EST

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Dave's patch removes the entry for the card with the 0x5b60.
> According to his bug report, Mauro has a Radeon X300SE that should
> have the 0x5b70 according to pci.ids from pciutils

No. Look closer:

04:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV370 5B60 [Radeon X300 (PCIE)] (prog-if 00 [VGA])
Subsystem: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. Extreme AX300SE-X

That's the 5b60 chip too (yeah, the lspci doesn't show numbers when it has
an ascii string, but in this case the ascii string happily has at least
that part of the number in it: ".. RV370 5B60 ..", where the 5B60 is just
the PCI ID number).

So it _is_ the same chip.

I just worry whether (a) the other added PCI ID's are any good for that
core and (b) whether the bug was really introduced with some of the other
changes. I admit that (b) is pretty unlikely, but it would be good to

> and that doesn't seem to be claimed by the DRM driver (and the dmesg
> from the bug report confirms that the radeon DRM driver didn't claim to
> be responsible for this card).

Sadly, that module loading is done by X. So the bootup dmesg stuff
wouldn't have had the message.

It might be interesting to see if the hang can be reproduced without
starting X at all, by just going a "modprobe radeon" or something.
Unlikely, though - while loading the drm modules does _some_ things to the
card, it's usually only when X actually starts sending commands to them
that things really go downhill..

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at