Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 40811
X doesn't work properly with Graphics Blaster Exxtreme
Last modified: 2007-04-18 12:33:16 EDT
Description of Problem:
Using a Graphics Blaster Exxtreme / 3DLabs Permedia 2V, PCI, 4 MB RAM
is neither recognized in both text and graphic installer; nor with
Xconfigurator. In all cases it shows up as 'generic', 1MB Blaster. With all
tricks, I could not get it to work at more than 800x600 correctly.
Identical machine before and after pose no problems with RH6.2.
No problems with ATI PCII, 8MB, AGP; Matrox Mystique, 4MB, PCI. Even a
later change of the card (use the Exxtreme) (kudzo) results in the same
problem. On XFree 3.3.6 it is okay ...
How Reproducible: Just install (tried several times and ways; see above), 100%
Steps to Reproduce:
Can you send the output of 'lspci -n' and 'lspci -v'. Also, can you attach your
XF86Config and XF86Config-4 files?
Created attachment 19393 [details]
lspci -n for -v see 40471
Need some more days to change the card back to Blaster. Currently, I can't
change the graphics card. Eventually, these dumps give some indication;
hopefully; even though there were produced with a fully functional card (ATI)
Well, I'll need the output of 'lspci -n' and 'lspci -v' with the Blaster video
card...I think that the problem lies somewhere in kudzu's pci id table. The
Blaster may have a pci id that isn't in the table, thus resulting in the card
not being probed.
Putting in 'Needinfo' until you can swap the cards.
Okay, here are the details (had the opportunity to swap!):
Xconfigurator identifies correctly: Permedia II 2D+3D
I enter the (correct) Monitor spec: Lite-On 1754
Detected memory: 1MB (it *is* 4MB and detected as such in any other RH-Distribution!)
Here we split into 2 alternatives:
1. I leave it like that. 1024x768 is displayed with 8 bits
2. I set the correct value: 4MB. The display is 640x400 with 24 bits
Attachments follow ...
Created attachment 19711 [details]
lspci -n for Blaster Exxtreme
Created attachment 19712 [details]
lspci -v Blaster Exxtreme
Created attachment 19713 [details]
As requested, the XF86Config
Created attachment 19714 [details]
As requested, the XF86Config-4 file ...
Hmmm...can you go to VC2 and run 'ddcprobe' and post the output? That will tell
us what amount of RAM that the video card is returning. The installer does some
calculating on the available screen resolutions based on the amount of video
ram. So, if we're finding only 1MB, that would explain why the resolution
choices aren't what you expect.
Also, does the same thing happen in text mode?
Before I swap the cards again some questions-remarks:
- Running 6.2, the card *returns* the correct amount (4MB)
- Even if it returned the wrong amount (as it does), why does it not accept the manually corrected 4MB and displays 1024x768 with 24bits, but 640x400 instead? Whatever ddcprobe returns, it should (must?) work with the manually corrected values, shouldn't it?
- what do you mean with 'text mode'?
1. Yes, manual override should allow for a full choice of resolutions. But I
am more concerned with the fact that 6.2 identifies the card correctly, but 7.1
2. By text mode, I mean "Did you try the text based installer instead of the
graphical one?" You can use text mode by typing 'text' at the bootup screen.
Yes, tried both Text and Graphics install in those days. No difference.
Before I endanger my life by swapping the card again (it is the PC on which my wife usually prepares and stores her teaching material!); can you rather send me a complete testing and probing plan? So that a swap (and eventually loss of life) finally delivers *all* data and info for you guys to get things right?
I'd hate for you to lose your life over a video card. Don't throw your life
Seriously, there's really not specific set of steps that I could give you that
would solve the problem. It sounds like the kind of thing that we could fix if
we had one of these in the test lab and could try a bunch of different things.
I just went through our big box o' video cards in the test lab, but I didn't
find one like yours.