<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Unknown Card-Ids (7122|1458|D000), Chipset: VX900" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94210#c8">Comment # 8</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Unknown Card-Ids (7122|1458|D000), Chipset: VX900" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94210">bug 94210</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:huangran@iscas.ac.cn" title="HuangRan <huangran@iscas.ac.cn>"> HuangRan</a> <pre>Hi Kevin, Recent two days, I am looking into the UMS xf86-video-openchrome code and also be shocked by ViaCardID[] struct in Via_id.c file. Why does the UMS driver use this table to identify the board? I am also buying some old boards including VX700/VX855/VX900 and I found some boards(i.e., Wyse Thin Clients) are not in this list. So I can guess same error will be reported. So It seems this ViaCardID table will only bring faults instead of any good things. Why not remove it? Thanks, Frank 发件人: Openchrome-devel [<a href="mailto:openchrome-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org">mailto:openchrome-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org</a>] 代表 <a href="mailto:bugzilla-daemon@freedesktop.org">bugzilla-daemon@freedesktop.org</a> 发送时间: 2016年2月24日 12:15 收件人: <a href="mailto:openchrome-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">openchrome-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a> 主题: [Openchrome-devel] [<a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Unknown Card-Ids (7122|1458|D000), Chipset: VX900" href="show_bug.cgi?id=94210">Bug 94210</a>] Unknown Card-Ids (7122|1458|D000), Chipset: VX900 <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=94210#c6">Comment # 6</a> <<a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Unknown Card-Ids (7122|1458|D000), Chipset: VX900" href="show_bug.cgi?id=94210#c6">https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94210#c6</a>> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Unknown Card-Ids (7122|1458|D000), Chipset: VX900" href="show_bug.cgi?id=94210">bug 94210</a> <<a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Unknown Card-Ids (7122|1458|D000), Chipset: VX900" href="show_bug.cgi?id=94210">https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94210</a>> from <<a href="mailto:kevinbrace@gmx.com">mailto:kevinbrace@gmx.com</a>> Kevin Brace (In reply to Dariusz Gadomski from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=94210#c5">comment #5</a> <<a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Unknown Card-Ids (7122|1458|D000), Chipset: VX900" href="show_bug.cgi?id=94210#c5">https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94210#c5</a>> ) Hi Dariusz, > Kevin, I will appreciate taking a look at the updated Xorg.log - the > segfault is gone, but the driver still does not recognize the card. > > Regarding your expectations towards 0.3.4 version adoption in Ubuntu: > unfortunately the Stable Release Updates policy > (<a href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates">https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates</a>) prevents upgrading packages > during the lifetime of the stable releases. The only available option seems > to be backporting individual changes (in response to reported bugs) to the > version already available in a particular release. > > Sadly, we also missed the opportunity to release it with 16.04 - as it has > entered the feature freeze state. > > I will check if there are any other options. Thank you very much for getting back with me. Please ignore the unknown device message you see in Xorg.0.log. This occurs due to the use of a weird known device table inside OpenChrome. I am not a fan of the use of something like this, The code is gradually moving towards all automatic detection of display devices, but this will take some time to complete. I am considering getting rid of this weird known device table in OpenChrome Version 0.3.5, but I will likely keep it in there for Version 0.3.4. This is what the weird known device table looks like _____________________________________________________________________________ . . . /*** VX900 ***/ {"Simmtronics SIMM-PC VX900i", VIA_VX900, 0x1019, 0x3126, VIA_DEVICE_CRT}, {"ECS VX900-I", VIA_VX900, 0x1019, 0x7C8E, VIA_DEVICE_CRT}, {"Foxconn L740", VIA_VX900, 0x105B, 0x0CFD, VIA_DEVICE_LCD | VIA_DEVICE_CRT}, {"HP T5550 Thin Client", VIA_VX900, 0x1106, 0x7122, VIA_DEVICE_CRT}, {"Biostar Viotech 3200+", VIA_VX900, 0x1565, 0x120A, VIA_DEVICE_CRT}, {"ASRock PV530", VIA_VX900, 0x1849, 0x7122, VIA_DEVICE_CRT}, {"Fujitsu Futro A300", VIA_VX900, 0xA0A0, 0x080F, VIA_DEVICE_CRT}, /* keep this */ {NULL, VIA_UNKNOWN, 0x0000, 0x0000, VIA_DEVICE_NONE} _____________________________________________________________________________ Looking at the link you provided, I feel like updating OpenChrome Version 0.3.3 is quite warranted based on the following clauses I saw in the link you provided. ___________________________________________________________________________ 2.1. High-impact bugs Stable release updates will, in general, only be issued in order to fix high-impact bugs. Examples of such bugs include: . . . - Bugs which represent severe regressions from the previous release of Ubuntu. This includes packages which are totally unusable, like being uninstallable or crashing on startup. . . . 2.2. Other safe cases In the following cases a stable release update is also applicable as they have a low potential for regressing existing installations but a high potential for improving the user experience, particularly for Long Term Support releases: - Bugs which do not fit under above categories, but (1) have an obviously safe patch and (2) affect an application rather than critical infrastructure packages (like X.org or the kernel). - For Long Term Support releases we regularly want to enable new hardware. Such changes are appropriate provided that we can ensure not to affect upgrades on existing hardware. For example, modaliases of newly introduced drivers must not overlap with previously shipped drivers. This also includes updating hardware description data such as udev's keymaps, media-player-info, mobile broadband vendors, or PCI vendor/product list updates. ___________________________________________________________________________ Anyway, since the bug is a fatal one, and a severe regression from Version 0.2.904, is there a way the newer version can be treated as a security fix update so that Canonical can replace OpenChrome Version 0.3.3? Also, can OpenChrome Version 0.3.4 go into Ubuntu 16.04.1 LTS if not Ubuntu 16.04 LTS? At this point, I will likely not release OpenChrome Version 0.3.4 since I have not been able to fix the DVI related problems completely at this point, although there was some progress on this front today. <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED - No signal to monitor with X and openchrome using VX855 chipset graphics" href="show_bug.cgi?id=91966#c211">https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91966#c211</a> If necessary, I can release OpenChrome Version 0.3.4 immediately, and fix DVI related bugs in Version 0.3.5. _____ You are receiving this mail because: * You are the assignee for the bug.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>