Bug 771073

Summary: Display fails without kernel parameter "nomodeset"
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: George R. Goffe <grgoffe>
Component: xorg-x11-drv-nouveauAssignee: Ben Skeggs <bskeggs>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 16CC: airlied, ajax, bskeggs, dennis
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-02-13 12:45:57 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description George R. Goffe 2011-12-31 19:40:05 UTC
Description of problem:

This is a freshly installed FC14-x86_64 system. The display shows nothing during install so I had to use "install with a minimally supported VGA" option. Now the system is up to date but without "nomodeset" the display fails.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

FC14 - x86_64

How reproducible:

Readily.

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Remove "nomodeset" from kernel lines in grub.conf
2.reboot
3.et voila!
  
Actual results:

Without "nomodeset", there is no display AND "alt+ctrl+f2" changes to tty2 but there is NO display either.

Expected results:

"normal" system operation

Additional info:

lspci output for the display: 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation Device 0df6 (rev a1)

Need other information? Just let me know.

Comment 1 George R. Goffe 2012-01-01 04:32:04 UTC
I just noted a "red hat" on the bottom panel (kde). ABRT seems to be stuck in connecting to server. I'm not sure if this merits another bug report or not. Opinions?

Here's the backtrace ABRT is trying to send. I suspect that it's related to this bug so I'm including it here.

Thanks, and HAPPY NEW YEAR!

George...

WARNING: at fs/proc/generic.c:583 proc_register+0x158/0x195()
Hardware name: N53SN
proc_dir_entry 'video/GFX0' already registered
Modules linked in: nouveau i915(+) ttm drm_kms_helper drm i2c_algo_bit i2c_core video output
Pid: 162, comm: modprobe Not tainted 2.6.35.6-45.fc14.x86_64 #1
Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff8104d7c1>] warn_slowpath_common+0x85/0x9d
 [<ffffffff8104d87c>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x46/0x48
 [<ffffffff81164abf>] proc_register+0x158/0x195
 [<ffffffff8116518a>] proc_mkdir_mode+0x42/0x5a
 [<ffffffff811651b8>] proc_mkdir+0x16/0x18
 [<ffffffffa00159ac>] acpi_video_bus_add+0x289/0x1029 [video]
 [<ffffffff81468108>] ? mutex_unlock+0x1b/0x1d
 [<ffffffff8116e9f1>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x2f/0xb9
 [<ffffffff8116ece4>] ? sysfs_add_one+0x21/0xf8
 [<ffffffff81468257>] ? mutex_lock+0x36/0x50
 [<ffffffff8116f573>] ? sysfs_do_create_link+0x144/0x18c
 [<ffffffff8126845f>] acpi_device_probe+0x50/0x122
 [<ffffffff812d7557>] driver_probe_device+0x14b/0x271
 [<ffffffff812d76da>] __driver_attach+0x5d/0x81
 [<ffffffff812d767d>] ? __driver_attach+0x0/0x81
 [<ffffffff812d645b>] bus_for_each_dev+0x56/0x82
 [<ffffffff812d7128>] driver_attach+0x1e/0x20
 [<ffffffff812d6d02>] bus_add_driver+0xf1/0x25e
 [<ffffffff812d793e>] driver_register+0x9b/0x108
 [<ffffffff81268a65>] acpi_bus_register_driver+0x43/0x45
 [<ffffffffa00167dc>] acpi_video_register+0x49/0x75 [video]
 [<ffffffffa0149233>] intel_opregion_init+0x401/0x464 [i915]
 [<ffffffffa01246ff>] i915_driver_load+0x1068/0x1100 [i915]
 [<ffffffff812d4818>] ? device_register+0x1e/0x22
 [<ffffffffa003f251>] drm_get_dev+0x39c/0x4ab [drm]
 [<ffffffff81219aeb>] ? kobject_get+0x1a/0x21
 [<ffffffffa0039f86>] drm_init+0x9b/0xdd [drm]
 [<ffffffffa016a000>] ? i915_init+0x0/0x96 [i915]
 [<ffffffffa016a094>] i915_init+0x94/0x96 [i915]
 [<ffffffff810021a1>] do_one_initcall+0x5e/0x155
 [<ffffffff8107caa9>] sys_init_module+0xa6/0x1e4
 [<ffffffff81009cf2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

Comment 2 George R. Goffe 2012-01-13 10:20:22 UTC
Updating this bug. The problem exists on a newly loaded and fully updated FC16-x86_64 system. I do NOT see the above stack trace now but the system behaves the same way otherwise.

Comment 3 Fedora End Of Life 2013-01-16 12:29:03 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 16 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 16. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '16'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 16's end of life.

Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 16 is end of life. If you 
would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it 
against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged to click on 
"Clone This Bug" and open it against that version of Fedora.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

The process we are following is described here: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 4 Fedora End Of Life 2013-02-13 12:46:00 UTC
Fedora 16 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2013-02-12. Fedora 16 is 
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further 
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of 
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.