disabled video? - Hardware

This is a discussion on disabled video? - Hardware ; I am trying to set up dual-head using a couple of older ATI Rage 128 PCI cards. The first card shows up fine, but the second card shows up as disabled: 00:09.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Rage 128 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: disabled video?

  1. disabled video?

    I am trying to set up dual-head using a couple of older ATI Rage 128 PCI
    cards.

    The first card shows up fine, but the second card shows up as disabled:

    00:09.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Rage 128 RE/SG
    (prog-if 00 [VGA])
    Subsystem: ATI Technologies Inc Xpert 128 Flags: bus master, VGA
    palette snoop, stepping, medium devsel, latency 32, IRQ 255 Memory
    at e4000000 (32-bit, prefetchable) [size=64M] I/O ports at 9000
    [size=256]
    Memory at ee044000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K] [virtual]
    Expansion ROM at 30000000 [disabled] [size=128K] Capabilities:
    [5c] Power Management version 1

    00:0a.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Rage 128 RE/SG (prog-if 00 [VGA])
    Subsystem: ATI Technologies Inc Xpert 128
    Flags: stepping, medium devsel, IRQ 255
    Memory at e8000000 (32-bit, prefetchable) [disabled] [size=64M]
    I/O ports at 9400 [disabled] [size=256]
    Memory at ee040000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [disabled] [size=16K]
    [virtual] Expansion ROM at 30020000 [disabled] [size=128K]
    Capabilities: [5c] Power Management version 1

    Does anyone have any idea what that means?

    X tries to start the card, and fails with

    Fatal server error:
    xf86MapVidMem: Could not mmap framebuffer (0xe8000000,0xfff00000) (Cannot
    allocate memory)

    Is this a BIOS limitation? Something in the PCI bus? The cards
    themselves?

    Any suggestions?

    --Yan

  2. Re: disabled video?

    ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.hardware.]
    On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:15:54 -0000, Captain Dondo staggered into the
    Black Sun and said:
    > I am trying to set up dual-head using a couple of older ATI Rage 128
    > PCI cards. The first card shows up fine, but the second card shows up
    > as disabled:
    >
    > 00:09.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Rage 128 RE/SG
    > Flags: bus master, VGA, palette snoop, stepping, medium devsel,
    > latency 32 IRQ 255
    > Memory at ee044000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K] [virtual]
    >
    > 00:0a.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Rage 128 RE/SG
    > Flags: stepping, medium devsel, IRQ 255
    > Memory at e8000000 (32-bit, prefetchable) [disabled] [size=64M]
    >
    > Does anyone have any idea what that means?


    255 is probably not a valid IRQ number, even on amd64. That may have
    something to do with what you're seeing. The cards are probably
    stepping on each other's toes in some way, though PCI is supposed to
    prevent that from happening.

    > xf86MapVidMem: Could not mmap framebuffer (0xe8000000,0xfff00000)
    > (Cannot allocate memory)


    lspci said that large chunks of the 2nd card are disabled, so this X
    error isn't too surprising. Um... hmm. I'll bet you've already tried
    moving 1 card to a different PCI slot, but have you tried resetting the
    ECSD data in the machine's BIOS? That might be necessary. I don't know
    for sure, the only r128 card I have is in a laptop.

    --
    A project for developing fully automatically driven cars
    (not just those misnamed auto-pilots) has been improved by your
    explosive flatulence. --MegaHAL, trained on ASR
    Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see

  3. Re: disabled video?

    V Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:11:10 -0600, Dances With Crows napsal(a):

    > ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.hardware.]
    > On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:15:54 -0000, Captain Dondo staggered into the
    > Black Sun and said:
    >> I am trying to set up dual-head using a couple of older ATI Rage 128
    >> PCI cards. The first card shows up fine, but the second card shows up
    >> as disabled:
    >>
    >> 00:09.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Rage 128 RE/SG
    >> Flags: bus master, VGA, palette snoop, stepping, medium devsel,
    >> latency 32 IRQ 255
    >> Memory at ee044000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K] [virtual]
    >>
    >> 00:0a.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Rage 128 RE/SG
    >> Flags: stepping, medium devsel, IRQ 255
    >> Memory at e8000000 (32-bit, prefetchable) [disabled] [size=64M]
    >>
    >> Does anyone have any idea what that means?

    >
    > 255 is probably not a valid IRQ number, even on amd64. That may have
    > something to do with what you're seeing. The cards are probably
    > stepping on each other's toes in some way, though PCI is supposed to
    > prevent that from happening.


    Yup, they're definitely clobbering each other. I dug up an old Matrox
    Millenium II (I'm scraping the bottom of the obsolete box) and it fired up
    just fine alongside the one ATI. So it's
    definitely the two ATI cards that don't play nice together.
    (Unfortunately the Matrox can only muster 800x600, so I can't use it....)

    >
    >> xf86MapVidMem: Could not mmap framebuffer (0xe8000000,0xfff00000)
    >> (Cannot allocate memory)

    >
    > lspci said that large chunks of the 2nd card are disabled, so this X
    > error isn't too surprising. Um... hmm. I'll bet you've already tried
    > moving 1 card to a different PCI slot,


    Yes. No dice.

    > but have you tried resetting the
    > ECSD data in the machine's BIOS? That might be necessary. I don't know
    > for sure, the only r128 card I have is in a laptop.
    >


    I saw that in the bios, but thought, NAH... Maybe I'll try it. :-)

    --Yan

  4. Re: disabled video?

    V Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:17:22 +0000, Captain Dondo napsal(a):

    >> 255 is probably not a valid IRQ number, even on amd64. That may have
    >> something to do with what you're seeing. The cards are probably
    >> stepping on each other's toes in some way, though PCI is supposed to
    >> prevent that from happening.

    >
    > Yup, they're definitely clobbering each other. I dug up an old Matrox
    > Millenium II (I'm scraping the bottom of the obsolete box) and it fired up
    > just fine alongside the one ATI. So it's
    > definitely the two ATI cards that don't play nice together.
    > (Unfortunately the Matrox can only muster 800x600, so I can't use
    > it....)
    >


    OK, one more item: if I set the display priority for AGP, then *both* ATI
    cards show up as disabled, and neither one works. This makes me think
    it's some sort of bios 'feature'.

    Is there any way (via setpci or something) to force (re)initialization of a
    video card?

    --Yan

  5. Re: disabled video?

    V Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:37:02 +0000, Captain Dondo napsal(a):

    > V Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:17:22 +0000, Captain Dondo napsal(a):
    >
    >>> 255 is probably not a valid IRQ number, even on amd64. That may have
    >>> something to do with what you're seeing. The cards are probably
    >>> stepping on each other's toes in some way, though PCI is supposed to
    >>> prevent that from happening.

    >>
    >> Yup, they're definitely clobbering each other. I dug up an old Matrox
    >> Millenium II (I'm scraping the bottom of the obsolete box) and it fired up
    >> just fine alongside the one ATI. So it's
    >> definitely the two ATI cards that don't play nice together.
    >> (Unfortunately the Matrox can only muster 800x600, so I can't use
    >> it....)
    >>

    >
    > OK, one more item: if I set the display priority for AGP, then *both* ATI
    > cards show up as disabled, and neither one works. This makes me think
    > it's some sort of bios 'feature'.
    >
    > Is there any way (via setpci or something) to force (re)initialization of a
    > video card?


    A bit of googling discovered that I can initialize the membase and ioports
    with

    setpci -s 0:c.0 COMMAND=2
    setpci -s 0:c.0 COMMAND=3

    which at least gets rid of the disabled:

    00:0c.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Rage 128 RE/SG (prog-if 00 [VGA])
    Subsystem: ATI Technologies Inc Xpert 128
    Flags: stepping, medium devsel, IRQ 5
    Memory at dc000000 (32-bit, prefetchable) [size=64M]
    I/O ports at a800 [size=256]
    Memory at e2044000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
    [virtual] Expansion ROM at 30020000 [disabled] [size=128K]
    Capabilities:

    But X still fails to start with the same message:

    Fatal server error:
    xf86MapVidMem: Could not mmap framebuffer (0xdc000000,0xfff00000) (Cannot
    allocate memory)

    The only difference I can see is that the working card shows up as bus
    master. Any way to set up the card as busmaster via setpci?

    00:09.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Rage 128 RE/SG (prog-if 00 [VGA])
    Subsystem: ATI Technologies Inc Xpert 128
    Flags: bus master, VGA palette snoop, stepping, medium devsel, latency 3 2, IRQ 12
    Memory at d8000000 (32-bit, prefetchable) [size=64M]
    I/O ports at 9000 [size=256]
    Memory at e2040000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
    [virtual] Expansion ROM at 30000000 [disabled] [size=128K]
    Capabilities:

  6. Re: disabled video?

    "Captain Dondo" writes:
    >I dug up an old Matrox
    >Millenium II (I'm scraping the bottom of the obsolete box) and it fired up
    >just fine alongside the one ATI. So it's
    >definitely the two ATI cards that don't play nice together.
    >(Unfortunately the Matrox can only muster 800x600, so I can't use it....)


    I have used both a Matrox Millenium and a Millenium II with 1600x1200
    (IIRC the Millenium with 8 or 16 bit colour depth).

    Actually, the Millenium II is still running at that resolution. From
    the output of the X server:

    XFree86 Version 3.3.6a / X Window System
    ....
    Configured drivers:
    SVGA: server for SVGA graphics adaptors (Patchlevel 1):
    mga2064w, mga1064sg, mga2164w, mga2164w AGP, mgag200, mgag100,
    mgag400, s3_virge, Voodoo Banshee, Voodoo3
    ....
    (**) SVGA: Graphics device ID: "Matrox Millennium II"
    ....
    (**) SVGA: Using 32 bpp, Depth 24, Color weight: 888
    (--) SVGA: Maximum allowed dot-clock: 220.000 MHz
    (**) SVGA: Mode "1600x1200": mode clock = 220.000
    (--) SVGA: Virtual resolution set to 1600x1200
    ....

    - anton
    --
    M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
    anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
    http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html

  7. Re: disabled video?

    V Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:29:48 +0000, Anton Ertl napsal(a):

    > "Captain Dondo" writes:
    >>I dug up an old Matrox
    >>Millenium II (I'm scraping the bottom of the obsolete box) and it fired up
    >>just fine alongside the one ATI. So it's
    >>definitely the two ATI cards that don't play nice together.
    >>(Unfortunately the Matrox can only muster 800x600, so I can't use it....)

    >
    > I have used both a Matrox Millenium and a Millenium II with 1600x1200
    > (IIRC the Millenium with 8 or 16 bit colour depth).
    >
    > Actually, the Millenium II is still running at that resolution. From
    > the output of the X server:
    >


    I guess the card I have is the Millenium, not the M II, and it only has
    maybe 1 MB RAM??? Anyway, if I tell X it has 2 or 4 MB RAM, it will show
    a 1152x768 screen, but it has severe corruption....

    Oh well.

    I think I will trade the ATI on a Diamond Stealth or a Matrox, if I can
    find a Matrox MII with more memory.

    --Yan

  8. Re: disabled video?

    Captain Dondo wrote:

    > I am trying to set up dual-head using a couple of older ATI Rage 128 PCI
    > cards.
    >
    > The first card shows up fine, but the second card shows up as disabled:

    [snip]
    > Any suggestions?


    Wild guess: upgrade to kernel 2.6.18 or better. From the changelog:

    [PATCH] PCI: Add a "enable" sysfs attribute to the pci devices
    to allow userspace (Xorg) to enable devices without doing foul
    direct access

    This patch adds an "enable" sysfs attribute to each PCI device.
    When read it shows the "enabled-ness" of the device, but you can
    write a "0" into it to disable a device, and a "1" to enable it.

    This later is needed for X and other cases where userspace wants
    to enable the BARs on a device (typical example: to run the
    video bios on a secundary head). Right now X does all this "by
    hand" via bitbanging, that's just evil. This allows X to no
    longer do that but to just let the kernel do this.

    I have no idea what version of Xorg is needed to make use of this,
    or even that it is really the root of your problem.


    --
    sig goes here...
    Peter D.

  9. Re: disabled video?

    "Captain Dondo" writes:
    >I guess the card I have is the Millenium, not the M II, and it only has
    >maybe 1 MB RAM??? Anyway, if I tell X it has 2 or 4 MB RAM, it will show
    >a 1152x768 screen, but it has severe corruption....


    IIRC the Millenium was available in 2MB and 4MB versions (I have the
    4MB version); even the 2MB version should be good enough for 1600x1200
    with 8bpp colour depth.

    - anton
    --
    M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
    anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
    http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html

  10. Re: disabled video?

    Il 13/01/2007 16:15, Captain Dondo dixit:
    > I am trying to set up dual-head using a couple of older ATI Rage 128 PCI
    > cards.
    > Any suggestions?


    Yan,
    since I'm having similar troubles, I suggest you to check a PCI card at
    the time, physically removing the other from the motherboard.
    Then you can see if lspci will give you different results.

    Cyrus

    --
    I love to be mailed just by smart people:
    perl -we 'print "\12\142\145\162\156\141\155\141\100\151".
    "\164\167\145\142\56\151\164\12\12";'

+ Reply to Thread