tech-x11 archive

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

Re: X server and PCI_MAGIC_IO_RANGE



Hi! Michael,


I apologize slow response.  X-)


From: Michael <macallan%netbsd.org@localhost>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:38:20 -0400

> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hello,
> On Apr 22, 2011, at 3:58 AM, KIYOHARA Takashi wrote:
> 
> > From: Michael <macallan%netbsd.org@localhost>
> > Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:30:00 -0400
> >
> >> That doesn't cause the failure - during the config phase Xorg doesn't
> >> really try to map IO, only later on.
> >> Xorg -configure is known broken since Xorg 1.9.x got imported.
> >> If your graphics device is PCI then Xorg should Just Work(tm) without
> >> a config file.
> >
> > hmm...
> >
> > I prepared xorg.conf for my ofppc the other day, and executed startx.
> > Is the cause of this Fatal server error quite different?
> > I apologize.  I am not investigating this error so much.  ;-<
> >
> > [   764.689] (II) TDFX(0): vgaHWGetIOBase: hwp->IOBase is 0x03d0,  
> > hwp->PIOOffset is 0x0d00
> > [   764.690] (WW) xf86MapVidMem: could not mmap screen  
> > [s=10000,a=a0000] (Invalid argument)
> > Fatal server error:
> > [   764.708] AddScreen/ScreenInit failed for driver 0
> 
> That's the tdfx driver trying to map the VGA aperture. Are you using  
> voodoofb?

> I guess the tdfx driver needs a bunch of #ifdefs to get rid of the  
> vgahw references on hardware where it isn't useful ( like anything  
> that doesn't use vga text mode )
> If you're using genfb you may want to add this to your kernel config:
> options WSFB_FAKE_VGA_FB
> this will allow the Xserver to map the first 128kB of video memory at  
> 0xa0000. Not that it will do anything useful with it but it should  
> shut up the error above.

Thanks for your follow.
I retry startx with WSFB_FAKE_VGA_FB.
However, I encountered a different problem, too.
I will challenge a little more. ;-)


> > In addition, my bebox hangs up without logging at all.  It doesn't
> > respond to ping(1) at this time.
> > Do you think that the problem of this bebox is different?

I do not understand this reason at all now.  ;-<

Thanks,
-- 
kiyohara


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index