Bug#246782: marked as done (xserver-xfree86: PCI domain detection still doesn't work for me)
Your message dated Thu, 7 Oct 2004 17:30:52 -0500
with message-id <20041007223052.GW19131@redwald.deadbeast.net>
and subject line Bug#246782: Still failing PCI domain detection.
has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 1 May 2004 05:17:20 +0000
>From ramune@net-ronin.org Fri Apr 30 22:17:20 2004
Return-path: <ramune@net-ronin.org>
Received: from d64-180-152-77.bchsia.telus.net (antichrist) [64.180.152.77] (postfix)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BJmsK-00014B-00; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:17:20 -0700
Received: by antichrist (Postfix, from userid 1003)
id B05BE3E9E; Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:13:35 -0700
From: carbonated beverage <ramune@net-ronin.org>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Failure to find video card with X
Message-ID: <20040501051335.GA32452@net-ronin.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 1
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.3.0-7
The code in xc/programs/Xserver/xfree86/hw/xfree86/os-support/bus/linuxPci.c
doesn't handle PCI Domains, so the X server fails to find the entry for the
video card under /proc.
This problem manifests itself with kernel 2.6.x.
Here's a simple patch to fix it, it first tries the old-style /proc/bus/pci
access, then tries to access it with the PCI Domain information as well.
I've only tested this on an Ultra 5 workstation with the testing distro.
---- begin patch ----
--- xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/bus/linuxPci.c.orig 2004-04-30 22:07:52.572277727 -0700
+++ xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/os-support/bus/linuxPci.c 2004-04-30 22:13:59.599136716 -0700
@@ -101,23 +101,34 @@
static int
linuxPciOpenFile(PCITAG tag)
{
- static int lbus,ldev,lfunc,fd = -1;
- int bus, dev, func;
- char file[32];
+ static int lbus,ldev,ldom,lfunc,fd = -1;
+ int bus, dev, dom, func;
+ char file[32], file2[32];
bus = PCI_BUS_FROM_TAG(tag);
dev = PCI_DEV_FROM_TAG(tag);
+ dev = PCI_DOM_FROM_TAG(tag);
func = PCI_FUNC_FROM_TAG(tag);
- if (fd == -1 || bus != lbus || dev != ldev || func != lfunc) {
+ if (fd == -1 || bus != lbus || dev != ldev || dom != ldom ||
+ func != lfunc) {
if (fd != -1)
close(fd);
- if (bus < 256)
+ if (bus < 256) {
sprintf(file, "/proc/bus/pci/%02x/%02x.%1x",
bus, dev, func);
- else
+ sprintf(file2, "/proc/bus/pci/%04x:%02x/%02x.%1x",
+ dom, bus, dom, dev, func);
+ } else {
sprintf(file, "/proc/bus/pci/%04x/%02x.%1x",
bus, dev, func);
+ sprintf(file2, "/proc/bus/pci/%04x:%04x/%02x.%1x",
+ dom, bus, dev, func);
+ }
fd = open(file,O_RDWR);
+ if(fd == -1) {
+ fd = open(file2,O_RDWR);
+ ldom = dom;
+ }
lbus = bus;
ldev = dev;
lfunc = func;
---- end patch ----
-- DN
Daniel
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 246782-done) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Oct 2004 22:30:56 +0000
>From branden@redwald.deadbeast.net Thu Oct 07 15:30:56 2004
Return-path: <branden@redwald.deadbeast.net>
Received: from dhcp065-026-182-085.indy.rr.com (sisyphus.deadbeast.net) [65.26.182.85]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1CFgmm-0004sa-00; Thu, 07 Oct 2004 15:30:56 -0700
Received: by sisyphus.deadbeast.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id EC5DF68C00F; Thu, 7 Oct 2004 17:30:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 17:30:52 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
To: 246782-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#246782: Still failing PCI domain detection.
Message-ID: <20041007223052.GW19131@redwald.deadbeast.net>
References: <20040825173010.GA26570@net-ronin.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="oXXuwmZolLKlWh2N"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040825173010.GA26570@net-ronin.org>
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Delivered-To: 246782-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
--oXXuwmZolLKlWh2N
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 10:30:10AM -0700, carbonated beverage wrote:
> quit
>=20
> Ah, I see the problem. I added unstable to the sources.list and
> put testing as the default target in apt.conf, updated xserver-xfree86.
Re-closing per submitter.
> When is this going into testing?
When we release a version that doesn't have release-critical bugs in it.
:)
You can stay abreast of the situation at the following URL:
http://packages.qa.debian.org/x/xfree86.html
--=20
G. Branden Robinson | My first priority in any attack is
Debian GNU/Linux | to solve the problem -- not issue a
branden@debian.org | press release.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Steve McInerney
--oXXuwmZolLKlWh2N
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkFlw5wACgkQ6kxmHytGonwPmQCfaxKaAMiau3rVBdLIw4iCtDkN
+oEAn0AGeZRVMGbK9Osqlkj7pxH20yWJ
=uxZY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--oXXuwmZolLKlWh2N--
Reply to: