Bug#280738: Acknowledgement (xserver-xfree86: When installing with a radeon 9200 SE (1002:5964) the ati wrapper doesn't recognize it, radeon is ok)
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 04:42:22AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> retitle 280738 xserver-xfree86: [ati] wrapper doesn't recognize Radeon 9200 SE (1002:5964) as requiring the radeon driver
> # This is not a SEGV, system crash, or hang.
> severity 280738 normal
> tag 280738 + upstream moreinfo help
> thanks
>
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 01:31:58PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ah, i guess the problem comes from the card having both a radeon pci id and a
> > second function which is listed as 1002:5d44, which displays as ATI
> > Technologies Inc RV280 [Radeon 9200 SE] (Secondary) in lspci output, and it is
> > this one that X is matching, not the primary one X knows about.
> >
> > Adding BusID PCI:1:8:0 doesn't seem to help here.
>
> Do you have any suggestions for how this could be rectified?
Well, i am a bit lost here, but more to this below ...
> Does the PCI ID matching code fail to disregard secondary (i.e., non-zero)
> functions in the PCI ID? *Should* it disregard secondary functions?
Well, i don't understand why the primary pci-id is not chosen here, but only
the secondary one. I have some feeling that the wrapper iterates or something
and choses the secondary pci id since it is the last one. Maybe i should
rebuild the driver and do some creative debugging to see what happens. See, if
you had accepted the driver-sdk patch all those years ago, i wouldn't need 4GB
and hours of compiling to make this happen :) To add to this, i only have the
prototype cpu module right now, which sometimes segfaults on heavy compilatin
:/
> Or is the fix simply to add the ID for the "(Secondary)" device to the ati
> driver, so it knows to load the radeon submodule?
Well, both fixes should do :
1) make the ati wrapper use only the primary function for identifying the
card.
2) add the secondary pci-id to the ati wrapper.
I don't know if the ati card work like the 3dlabs wildcat VP, where you can
configure the card into behaving as two fully independent heads (with two
framebuffers and two accel pipes and so on), then it makes sense to go for 2),
but i don't think this is the case, so i would guess 1) is the way to go, and
this is an upstream bug, maybe they even have a fix already for this, did you
check ?
> I could use some advice as to what the best path forward is, even once I
> have more information from the submitter, so I am tagging this bug "help".
Ok. I would :
1) contact radeon driver upstream to see if they have a newer version which
fixes this.
2) make the ati wrapper use only the first function.
Investigating 2) right now, but i don't promise anything.
BTW, next time, please bcc control, so idon't need to remove it when replying :)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: