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

Re: MSI N210 graphics card causes boot failure

On 2012-01-01 18:11 +0100, Camaleón wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 17:57:09 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> On 2012-01-01 17:46 +0100, Camaleón wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 17:20:25 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>>>> On 2012-01-01 15:33 +0100, Camaleón wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 11:29:51 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>>>>>> On 2011-12-31 21:41 +0100, Dean Allen Provins, P. Geoph. wrote:
>>>>>> That's why I suggested to log in from a second computer via ssh. 
>>>>>> It's hard to do anything with a blank screen.
>>>>> I guess blacklisting nouveau module should have be done from "init 1"
>>>>> with no running X session at all.
>>>> Booting with "init 1" does not prevent the module from being loaded.
>>> (...)
>>> I haven't expressed myself right. I didn't want to say "booting at init
>>> 1 to prevent the nuvó module from being loaded" but once the system has
>>> booted (with KMS disabled) jump to "init 1" and blacklist the module
>>> from there.
>> There is no reason why you would need to switch to runlevel 1 for that.
> Neither to avoid losing X and preventing Xorg from going nuts? :-)

No, since booting with "nomodeset" already renders the nouveau module

>> Besides, changing the bootloader configuration to permanently add the
>> "nomodeset" kernel parameter might be better than blacklisting the
>> module.
> Why do you think "nvidia" nor "nuvó" are not going to work?

For nvidia, booting with nomodeset is fine, and I did not mean to imply
that nouveau will not work for the OP.  But *if* you want to be sure
that it does not harm you, the kernel parameter is better since
blacklisting a module does not prevent it from being loaded in all
situations.  For instance the X server, unlike udev, invokes modprobe
without the "-b" option when a driver needs a kernel module.

> Because 
> working with VESA does not look like a sane option nowadays :-(

Few people will be happy with vesa, that's true.


Reply to: