bug-gnubg
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Bug-gnubg] 3d board not working


From: Joseph Heled
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] 3d board not working
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 20:03:59 +1200

I get about 4 times better than non direct, 435.200 FPS. Perhaps I am
still missing something.

If anyone can see anything indicating a problem here it would be nice ...

II) Loading sub module "int10"
(II) LoadModule: "int10"
(II) Reloading /usr/X11R6/lib/modules/linux/libint10.a
(II) SAVAGE(0): initializing int10
(II) SAVAGE(0): Primary V_BIOS segment is: 0xc000
(II) SAVAGE(0): VESA BIOS detected
(II) SAVAGE(0): VESA VBE Version 3.0
(II) SAVAGE(0): VESA VBE Total Mem: 15296 kB
(II) SAVAGE(0): VESA VBE OEM: S3 Graphics ProSavage DDR Family BIOS
(II) SAVAGE(0): VESA VBE OEM Software Rev: 2.0
(II) SAVAGE(0): VESA VBE OEM Vendor: S3 Garphics Incorporated.
(II) SAVAGE(0): VESA VBE OEM Product: VBE 3.0
(II) SAVAGE(0): VESA VBE OEM Product Rev: Rev 0.0
(--) SAVAGE(0): mapping framebuffer @ 0xd0000000 with size 0x1000000
(==) SAVAGE(0): Write-combining range (0xd0000000,0x1000000)
(II) SAVAGE(0): Splitting WC range: base: 0xd2000000, size: 0x5000000
(II) SAVAGE(0): Splitting WC range: base: 0xd4000000, size: 0x3000000
(==) SAVAGE(0): Write-combining range (0xd6000000,0x1000000)
(==) SAVAGE(0): Write-combining range (0xd4000000,0x3000000)
(==) SAVAGE(0): Write-combining range (0xd2000000,0x5000000)
(II) SAVAGE(0): map aperture:0xb1ce9000
(II) SAVAGE(0): 11382 kB of Videoram needed for 3D; 16384 kB of
Videoram available
(II) SAVAGE(0): Sufficient Videoram available for 3D
(II) SAVAGE(0): [drm] bpp: 16 depth: 16
(II) SAVAGE(0): [drm] Sarea 2200+284: 2484
drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (Unknown error 999)
drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (Unknown error 999)
drmOpenDevice: Open failed
drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (Unknown error 999)
drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (Unknown error 999)
drmOpenDevice: Open failed
drmOpenByBusid: Searching for BusID pci:0000:01:00.0
drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
drmOpenDevice: open result is 7, (OK)
drmOpenByBusid: drmOpenMinor returns 7
drmOpenByBusid: drmGetBusid reports pci:0000:01:00.0
(II) SAVAGE(0): [drm] loaded kernel module for "savage" driver
(II) SAVAGE(0): [drm] DRM interface version 1.2
(II) SAVAGE(0): [drm] created "savage" driver at busid "pci:0000:01:00.0"
(II) SAVAGE(0): [drm] added 8192 byte SAREA at 0xefc2a000
(II) SAVAGE(0): [drm] mapped SAREA 0xefc2a000 to 0xb1ce7000
(II) SAVAGE(0): [drm] framebuffer handle = 0xd0000000
(II) SAVAGE(0): [drm] added 1 reserved context for kernel
(II) SAVAGE(0): [agp] Mode 0x1f000201 [AGP 0x1106/0x3116; Card 0x5333/0x8d04]
(II) SAVAGE(0): [agp] 16384 kB allocated with handle 0x00000001
(II) SAVAGE(0): [agp] command DMA handle = 0xe0000000
(II) SAVAGE(0): [agp] agpTextures handle = 0xe0100000
(II) SAVAGE(0): [drm] aperture handle = 0xd2000000
(II) SAVAGE(0): [drm] Enabling ShadowStatus for DRI.
(II) SAVAGE(0): [drm] Status handle = 0x2910d000
(II) SAVAGE(0): [drm] Status page mapped at 0xb1ce6000
(II) SAVAGE(0): [dri] visual configs initialized
(**) SAVAGE(0): DRI is enabled

On 9/9/05, Jon Kinsey <address@hidden> wrote:
> Joseph Heled wrote:
> > OK. I downloaded a new kernel. I downloaded the latest DRI drivers for
> > my card, only to discover the problem is I am using a color depth of
> > 24, which takes lots of memory which dri needs since the card has only
> > 16K on it, so DRI was disabled.
> >
> > I got back to depth 16, and DRI is enabled again. BUT....
> 
> You were right about the "direct" setting, also the gears example is
> very simple (I get 4297 fps!).
> 
> >   The test says performance is OK, but it is still slugish. Not as
> > slow as before, but not fast, especially GNUBG checkers play. am I
> > missing a setting?
> 
> Quick draw?
> 
> > The cube is blank. The dice is funny. There are no labels.
> 
> cube + labels -> ftgl problem. funny dice -> probably opengl driver
> problem (are the dots a bit "smudged"?).
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
>




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]