Re: X server support?

[Michael Lorenz <macallan%netbsd.org@localhost>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

On Sep 16, 2008, at 2:06 PM, KIYOHARA Takashi wrote:

> From: Michael Lorenz <macallan%netbsd.org@localhost>
> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:42:11 -0400
>
> > Then X tries to mmap the card's framebuffer aperture, apparently
> > believing it's at 0xfc000000 but I see no such range reported in the
> > PCI scan. Could you please post the card's pcictl dump output?
> > I suspect that the card either doesn't have a BAR for its aperture or
> > the driver doesn't look at it and tries to get the aperture address
> > from the graphics chip's IO registers which returns bogus since we
> > failed to map IO space.
> > If the card doesn't use a BAR for its aperture we have a problem
> > since drivers like genfb will only let you mmap ranges that are
> > either known to belong to the graphics chip or PCI IO.
>
> I builded xserver for bebox on last weekend.  It was not able to load
> pcidata correctly though it made *_ drv.o for X.
>
>
> Can this problem be solved?  Should I overwrite the module of ofppc or
> macppc again?

That's a known problem, Magnus Henoch posted a workaround on port- 
macppc a while ago ( it 's a hack in ld.so_elf / rtld.c and avoids  
using __builtin_return_addr(0) which occasionally returns bogus on  
powerpc, so far xorg's module loader is the only known program that  
triggers it. I'm not aware of a similar problem on any other CPU  
architecture though.

> And, I appended the log of pcictl dump.

None of the BARs contain anything useful - this needs a hack to get  
working with acceleration ( we need to add something to tell genfb  
what ranges it's allowed to mmap even if they're not covered by any  
BAR ) but wsfb should work.

>     Base address register at 0x10
>       not implemented(?)
>     Base address register at 0x14
>       not implemented(?)
>     Base address register at 0x18
>       not implemented(?)
>     Base address register at 0x1c
>       not implemented(?)
>     Base address register at 0x20
>       not implemented(?)
>     Base address register at 0x24
>       not implemented(?)

have fun
Michael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)

iQEVAwUBSNETcMpnzkX8Yg2nAQLi4wf/Vg4Kr6SO2hZ9IVW1u48zl9oFOKs+yck+
OwkwqhvBSJjAWTg7AVMz4MvONOLr7cXEwR101Ug0WQ2SKx4B5VnqEX6d5jhXLOPw
fl2zUJnb6Fd+c9WG0o9hfcs8AEf4WHPjHXGlCJiD7hu6V/G5EhKyheMwCnGPMKu4
u9cSL/jPdPAg+nFx2T0M7IcckrSyHHphDj4zeTLbQYnwqJKxETmlQKY7DXVM03Rz
gDDxiP6YbuEEPpGNZGKPI+aNJjfsfzzvlVKHzfqX7oNkrI/pDN3QrCp3Nms6rL0D
v1HZu6BRvKxzJXJCT540fliPl9fJmIIHkit0TkC9p4AFecj/nJj+Gw==
=hMNn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----