Re: 2.6.16-rc3: more regressions

[Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:16:59AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
 > 
 > 
 > On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
 > > 
 > > DaveA, I'll apply this for now. Comments?
 > 
 > Btw, the fact that Mauro has the same exact PCI ID (well, lspci stupidly 
 > suppresses the ID entirely, but the string seems to match the one that 
 > Dave Jones reports) may be unrelated.
 > 
 > DaveJ (or Mauro): since you can test this, can you test having that ID 
 > there but _without_ the other changes to drm in -rc1?
 > 
 > Ie was it the addition of that particular ID, or are the other radeon
 > driver changes (which haven't had as much testing) perhaps the culprit?
 >
 > I realize that without the ID, that card would never have been tested 
 > anyway, but the point being that plain 2.6.15 with _just_ that ID added 
 > has at least gotten more testing on other (similar) chips. So before I 
 > revert that particular ID, it would be nice to know that it was broken 
 > even with the previous radeon driver state.

r300 is unlike the other chips though.
Adding that ID on its own doesn't make any sense, as the rest of the
radeon driver won't have a clue how to drive the new hardware.

		Dave

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/