Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:40:08 +0300 From: Anonymous <swell.k@gmail.com> To: freebsd-x11 <freebsd-x11@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PREVIEW] Nouveau on FreeBSD Message-ID: <86tz5efmrr.fsf@gmail.com> References: <1237527331.1777.516.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <86d4cbflqc.fsf@gmail.com> <1237616346.1758.17.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <86mybf73jt.fsf@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anonymous <swell.k@gmail.com> writes:
> Robert Noland <rnoland@FreeBSD.org> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 09:12 +0300, Anonymous wrote:
>>> Robert Noland <rnoland@FreeBSD.org> writes:
>>> The module works fine but not very usable on my
>>> 9600GT. One thing to note is that NoAccel works *slower* than without
>>> nouveau.ko present at least on my box.
>>
>> That doesn't make any sense... If the module isn't loaded, or X isn't
>> attached to it nothing is changed.
>
> Yep, I heard same answer from nouveau devs a while ago. But smth in
> xf86-video-nouveau works differently when NoAccel explicitly set in
> xorg.conf and module is present.
I think the source of my confusion is here
/* Attempt to initialise the kernel module, if we fail this we'll
* fallback to limited functionality.
*/
if (!NVPreInitDRM(pScrn)) {
xf86DrvMsg(pScrn->scrnIndex, X_NOTICE,
"Failing back to NoAccel mode\n");
pNv->NoAccel = TRUE;
pNv->ShadowFB = TRUE;
}
It turns on shadow framebuffer but does *not* report about it in Xorg.log.
And with DRM present ShadowFB defaults to FALSE, so it's not enough
to turn NoAccel on alone to achieve same effect as without module.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86tz5efmrr.fsf>