On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Mathieu Malaterre <malat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Marek Olšák <maraeo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> [+ dri-devel] >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Mathieu Malaterre <malat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Before reporting a possible invalid bug report. Does anyone knows why >>>> radeaonfb is not configured the same way radeon is ? For instance on a >>>> PowerPC machine, when Open Firmware Frame Buffer is used (OFfb), I >>>> cannot `modprobe radeonfb` (but I can load `radeon`). It fails with: >>>> >>>> [ 96.551486] radeonfb 0000:00:10.0: enabling device (0006 -> 0007) >>>> [ 96.551526] radeonfb 0000:00:10.0: BAR 0: can't reserve [mem >>>> 0x98000000-0x9fffffff pref] >>>> [ 96.551531] radeonfb (0000:00:10.0): cannot request region 0. >>>> [ 96.551545] radeonfb: probe of 0000:00:10.0 failed with error -16 >>>> >>>> It seems (to me) that it should be possible to add something like this >>>> to `radeonfb`: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_drv.c#L353 >>>> >>>> Is the above correct ? >> >> Yes, probably. But is there any reason why you'd want to use radeonfb >> rather than radeon? > > I'll check with the debian-installer team if this is possible. Right > now the debian-installer is setup to use `radeonfb` (at least on > PowerPC) during the text-based installation. > > ref: https://bugs.debian.org/825840#77 [between a rock and a hard place] So it seems there would be a risk moving from radeonfb to radeon, esp. since Debian does not distribute (at least by default) the firmware during installation: https://bugs.debian.org/826629#12. I'll report the bug against radeonfb and see if I can provide a patch. -M _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
