=== jono is now known as Guest52708
[06:59] <mlankhorst> marvin24: ah.. I forgot to check if drivers used the platform id
[06:59] <mlankhorst> I thought busid was only used in the xserver
[07:01] <mlankhorst> I'll determine platform id from sysfs too, should be safe
[11:17] <marvin24> mlankhorst: yes, opentegra also used busid from xf86_get_platform_device_attrib
[11:18] <marvin24> but I guess it won't be NULL, because it's not a pci device
[11:18] <marvin24> mlankhorst: notify me if you have a fix I can test
[12:50] <mdeslaur> tjaalton: I think precise is going to need a nvidia-settings update too, does that make sense?
[12:52] <mdeslaur> whoops tab fail
[12:52] <mdeslaur> tjaalton: sorry, not you
[12:52] <mdeslaur> tseliot: I think precise is going to need a nvidia-settings update too, does that make sense?
[12:55] <tjaalton> :)
[13:45] <tseliot> mdeslaur: ok, I can do that, is this only for nvidia-current-updates?
[13:45] <mdeslaur> tseliot: I only tested nvidia-current in precise so far, and the nvidia-settings that goes with it doesn't allow me to change resolutions with the 304 driver
[13:46] <mdeslaur> tseliot: precise's nvidia-settings-updates has a more recent 304.43, so it may work there
[13:46] <tseliot> mdeslaur: ok, but are you going to upload both nvidia-current and nvidia-current-updates in precise?
[13:47] <mdeslaur> tseliot: but, would it make sense to push 304.88 of settings everywhere?
[13:47] <mdeslaur> tseliot: yes, that was my intention
[13:47] <mdeslaur> tseliot: that's what you prepared for me, no?
[13:48] <tseliot> mdeslaur: yes, it is entirely your choice though whether to update nvidia-current in Precise or not
[13:48] <tseliot> mdeslaur: and yes, it's best if nvidia-settings matches the driver version it's supposed to be used with
[13:49] <mdeslaur> tseliot: I don't think we have much of a choice...do you know if there are any issues in 304.x that 295.x doesn't have?
[13:49] <mdeslaur> I'm sure we're going to break _some_ people
[13:51] <tseliot> mdeslaur: I'm not sure but 304 is the only supported legacy branch, whereas the 295 branch was short-lived and is not supported any more
[13:51] <mdeslaur> It's a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario
[13:52] <mdeslaur> does anyone else in here have an opinion on pushing 304.88 to precise as a security update?
[13:52] <tseliot> mdeslaur: right. It still supports GeForce 6 series (which is pretty old)
[13:54] <tseliot> mdeslaur: here's the list of supported cards for 295.40: http://it.download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/295.40/README/supportedchips.html
[13:54] <tjaalton> mdeslaur: +1
[13:55] <tseliot> and here's the list for 304.88: http://it.download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/304.88/README/supportedchips.html
[13:55] <mdeslaur> if we push 304.88, do we need to get stuff re-tested on precise? like steam or such? or is everything pretty much better with 304.88?
[13:55] <tseliot> mdeslaur: well, with Steam, you might really wanna use the experimental driver
[14:01] <tseliot> mdeslaur: let me package nvidia-settings for you...
[14:01] <mdeslaur> tseliot: awesome, thanks!
[14:05] <bjsnider> mdeslaur, i think 304.88 should be pushed
[14:05] <bjsnider> in fact i didn't know there would be any question of it
[14:06] <mdeslaur> ok, I feel a lot better being able to blame #ubuntu-x when I get my usual security team death threats email :)
[14:06] <bjsnider> blame nvidia
[14:06] <bjsnider> should be pushed further back than precise too
[14:07] <mdeslaur> oh! yeah, I keep forgetting I can just blame nvidia :)
[14:07] <bjsnider> i'm just trying to get that done so i don't have to put it in the ppa
[14:29] <tseliot> :)
[15:31] <mlankhorst> marvin24: fixed, I think..
[15:31] <mlankhorst> attached to the bug report
[15:34] <mlankhorst> oops
[16:08] <marvin24> mlankhorst: compiling ...
[17:12] <marvin24> mlankhorst: no change
[17:26] <marvin24> but removing your patch alltogther works :-(
[17:42] <mlankhorst> ugh
[17:42] <mlankhorst> whats the sysfs path?
[17:47] <mdeslaur> tseliot: so, the issue I was seeing with nvidia-settings on precise is still there, even after upgrading to nvidia-settings 304.88...I can't change screen resolution on my laptop anymore
[17:48] <mdeslaur> tseliot: all I have is "Auto" and "1680x1050" in the dropdown instead of the list of resolutions that was available with the 295 driver
[17:48] <mdeslaur> tseliot: any ideas what it could be?
[17:49] <tseliot> mdeslaur: I wouldn't know. Some failure to read the EDID? I'm not sure
[17:49] <Sarvatt> mdeslaur: it uses system settings>display now instead of nvidia-settings
[17:49] <mlankhorst> marvin24: are you sure it should be platform:omapdrm:0 ? I figured it would be platform:omapdrm:00
[17:51] <mlankhorst> oh duh!
[17:51] <mdeslaur> Sarvatt: system settings->display only has 1680x1050 in the dropdown also
[17:51] <mlankhorst> marvin24: remove the \n on the asprintf line
[17:51] <mlankhorst> that should make the patch work
[17:53] <marvin24> mlankhorst: I'm on tegra ...
[17:53] <marvin24> will check
[17:53] <mlankhorst> that's fine, format should be the same
[17:54] <mlankhorst> I only tested on x86 by copying that logic into a separate c program anyway, and hardcoded a test string, didn't notice the newline there :P
[17:54] <Sarvatt> is there any kind of scaling options anywhere in nvidia-settings that might make it show more resolutions?
[17:54] <mlankhorst> like scaling on a lcd is a good idea anyway....
[17:54]  * Sarvatt looks over the readme
[18:03] <marvin24> mlankhorst: nope
[18:06] <marvin24> on tegra, there is no platorm device related to graphics I guess
[18:07] <marvin24> why can't we just check if busid is NULL?
[18:09] <mlankhorst> marvin24: $ udevadm info --query=all --name=/dev/dri/card0 ?
[18:22] <mlankhorst> on the tegra
[18:43] <marvin24> mlankhorst: /devices/host1x/drm/card0
[18:43] <mlankhorst> oh right, I forgot that tegra reinvents the wheel
[18:44] <marvin24> yes, that may change in the future maybe
[18:44] <marvin24> should be platfrom/host1x ...
[18:44] <marvin24> there was a long discussion about this
[18:44] <mlankhorst> still wouldn't help
[18:44] <mdeslaur> ah, seems nvidia 302.xx introduced this change: "Removed Flat Panel Scaling configurability in nvidia-settings."...so I guess it's normal when going from 295 to 304
[18:45] <mlankhorst> where's the tegra git tree?
[18:48] <marvin24> mlankhorst: mainlined
[18:48] <mlankhorst> i mean for xf86-video-*tegra
[18:48] <marvin24> ah
[18:48] <mlankhorst> oh they're just using busid, sigh
[18:49] <mlankhorst> marvin24: what's the busid on tegra?
[18:49] <marvin24> git://gitorious.org/thierryreding/xf86-video-opentegra.git
[18:49] <marvin24> mmh, no idea
[18:50] <mlankhorst> blergh I guess I'll fall back if parsing fails
[18:53]  * mlankhorst grumbls at busid being used to open device, rather than raw fd
[18:56] <marvin24> mlankhorst: busid:platform:host1x:00
[18:58] <mlankhorst> exactly what I expected it to be, I guess I'll special case host1x after adding a fallback probe :P
[19:03] <mlankhorst> marvin24: but yeah, it should be /devices/platform/host1x.0 I suppose..
[19:04] <marvin24> mlankhorst: you can ask tagr on #tegra why it isn't like this 
[19:08] <mlankhorst> sigh
[19:08] <mlankhorst> drmfreebusid takes a const char *
[19:41] <mlankhorst> marvin24: http://paste.ubuntu.com/5680811/ last attempt for now
[20:36] <marvin24> mlankhorst: yup - this worked
[20:37] <marvin24> thanks!
=== ubott2 is now known as ubottu