[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#856821: marked as done (firmware-linux-nonfree: romheaders of R420_cp.bin for ati x800 xt agp gfx card in package not OK.)

Your message dated Sun, 05 Mar 2017 04:11:22 +0000
with message-id <1488687082.2953.5.camel@decadent.org.uk>
and subject line Re: Bug#856821: firmware-linux-nonfree: romheaders of R420_cp.bin for ati x800 xt agp gfx card in package not OK.
has caused the Debian Bug report #856821,
regarding firmware-linux-nonfree: romheaders of R420_cp.bin for ati x800 xt agp gfx card in package not OK.
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
856821: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=856821
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: firmware-linux-nonfree
Version: 0.43
Severity: important
Tags: newcomer

Dear Maintainer,

Copy-pasted:

me@mybox:~/fw-radeon$ romheaders R420_cp.bin

Image 1:
PCI Expansion ROM Header:
  Signature: 0x0000 (Not Ok)
  CPU unique data: 0x00 0x00 0x42 0x00 0xe0 0x00 0x00 0x00
                   0x00 0x00 0x40 0x00 0xe0 0x00 0x00 0x00
  Pointer to PCI Data Structure: 0x0000

Rom Header error occured. Bailing out.


This is for the R420_cp.bin in firmware-linux-nonfree. I used another rom from
'net and though no GPU acceleration (noted disabled in dmesg), at least that
one doesn't lock up my system at boot. At boot with this R420_cp.bin from
firmware-linux-nonfree I get a black screen and system lockup, though X was
previously working fine (no other changes) before the package's installation.

Here's copy-paste for my rom from 'net for comparison:

me@mybox:~/ati_ret_x800xt$ romheaders R420_cp.bin

Image 1:
PCI Expansion ROM Header:

Signature: 0x55aa (Ok)
  CPU unique data: 0x40 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
                   0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
  Pointer to PCI Data Structure: 0x0020

PCI Data Structure:
  Signature: 0x50434952 'PCIR' (Ok)
  Vendor ID: 0x1002
  Device ID: 0x4a48
  Vital Product Data:  0x0000
  PCI Data Structure Length: 0x0020 (32 bytes)
  PCI Data Structure Revision: 0x00
  Class Code: 0x030000 (VGA Display controller)
  Image Length: 0x00f1 blocks (123392 bytes)
  Revision Level of Code/Data: 0x0000
  Code Type: 0x01 (Open Firmware)
  Last-Image Flag: 0x80 (last image in rom)
  Reserved: 0x0000

Platform specific data for Open Firmware compliant rom:
  Pointer to FCode program: 0x0040

Note: I still do NOT get GPU acceleration by any means, though using a rom that
is not apparently volatile.

Thank you.



-- System Information:
Debian Release: 8.7
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (1000, 'stable'), (900, 'stable'), (50, 'unstable')
Architecture: powerpc (ppc64)

Kernel: Linux 3.16.0-4-powerpc64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
You are confusing two entirely different types of firmware - GPU
microcode and PCI expansion ROMs.  The microcode is 'correct', or at
least it is the same microcode that Linux has used since 2008.

The problem you're seeing is in the radeon kernel or X driver.  It is
triggered by installation of this package because they won't use GPU
acceleration if there is no microcode available for it.  You can open a
bug against the kernel, but I'm afraid it is very unlikely that
radeon's issues with old PowerPC machines will ever be fixed.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
All the simple programs have been written, and all the good names
taken.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


--- End Message ---
Reply to: