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.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 30 2001 - 21:00:27 EST