Xorg changes? Nouveaux prefered over NV? How can I tell?
I have a sqeeze system running as (amongst lots of other things) a
mythtv backend/frontend combination.
Yesterday, after a long overdue aptitude update, I noticed the video
playing rather slow.
I had previously configured the nvidia kernel module to run because it
seem to perform better with mythtv
Looking at my Xorg.0.log file, it appears that the nv driver is being
loaded, but then unloaded and glx also fails to load. the nouveau
driver also appears to be loaded (I can see it starting up and I don't
see it failing - although the vesa driver also seems to start up.
(==) Matched nouveau as autoconfigured driver 0
(==) Matched nv as autoconfigured driver 1
(==) Matched vesa as autoconfigured driver 2
(==) Matched fbdev as autoconfigured driver 3
(==) Assigned the driver to the xf86ConfigLayout
(II) LoadModule: "nouveau"
(II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/nouveau_drv.so
(II) Module nouveau: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
compiled for 1.7.7, module version = 0.0.15
Module class: X.Org Video Driver
ABI class: X.Org Video Driver, version 6.0
(II) LoadModule: "nv"
(II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/nv_drv.so
(II) Module nv: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
compiled for 1.7.7, module version = 2.1.17
Module class: X.Org Video Driver
ABI class: X.Org Video Driver, version 6.0
...
further down the file, and with no warning as to why
(II) UnloadModule: "nv"
(II) Unloading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/nv_drv.so
...
(EE) Failed to initialize GLX extension (Compatible NVIDIA X driver not
found)
I have the following in /etc/modprobe.d/nvidia-kernel-common.conf
alias char-major-195* nvidia
options nvidia NVreg_DeviceFileUID=0 NVreg_DeviceFileGID=44
NVreg_DeviceFileMode=0660
# To enable FastWrites and Sidebus addressing, uncomment these lines
# options nvidia NVreg_EnableAGPSBA=1
# options nvidia NVreg_EnableAGPFW=1
# see #580894
blacklist nouveau
Which I seem to remember was a previous attempt to ensure the nouveau
driver didn't load. However an lsmod definitely shows it to be there.
Anyone any ideas as to what could be wrong.
--
Alan Chandler
http://www.chandlerfamily.org.uk
Reply to: