Bug#703370: No more problems after increasing frame buffer size
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello Jonathan,
Thank you for the fast response and for the hint with kernel 3.8.2.
Possibly, i have found the issue.
Kernel 3.8.2 from experimental:
===============================
After installing kernel 3.8.2 from experimental, the gnome shell
didn't start.
Reason was a too small frame buffer size with 32MB in UEFI.
The output from dmesg:
> [ 8.118003] radeon_gem_object_create:69 alloc size 64Mb bigger
> than 32Mb limit [ 8.132380] radeon_gem_object_create:69 alloc
> size 64Mb bigger than 32Mb limit [ 8.132574]
> radeon_gem_object_create:69 alloc size 64Mb bigger than 32Mb limit
> [ 8.132629] gnome-shell[2737]: segfault at 14 ip
> 00007f5da2b5865d sp 00007fff8af907b0 error 4 in
> r600_dri.so[7f5da28a0000+d05000] [ 9.233377]
> radeon_gem_object_create:69 alloc size 64Mb bigger than 32Mb limit
> [ 9.247754] radeon_gem_object_create:69 alloc size 64Mb bigger
> than 32Mb limit [ 9.247957] radeon_gem_object_create:69 alloc
> size 64Mb bigger than 32Mb limit [ 9.248014] gnome-shell[2785]:
> segfault at 14 ip 00007f99356b065d sp 00007fff2c699900 error 4 in
> r600_dri.so[7f99353f8000+d05000]
After increasing the frame buffer size from 32MB to 64MB, gnome shell
starts without any errors.
There is no error message regarding the radeon-drm problem described
in my bug report.
Kernel 3.2.39-2 from testing:
=============================
After increasing the frame buffer size to 64MB, the error message
described in my bug report is no more in /var/log/syslog.
> Sorry for the trouble and hope that helps,
I have to say thank you for your support and for the Debian distribution.
- From my side, you can close this bug report.
Best regards
Bernhard
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=+p+2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: