Re: Claims to Not Support Visual (rv280)

>> I have a rv280 based card (Radeon 9250) and in my xorg log I see these
>> messages:
>> 
>> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x23
>> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x24
>> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x25
>> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x26
>> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x27
>> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x28
>> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x29
>> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x2a
>> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x2b
>> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x2c
>> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x2d
>> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x2e
>> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x2f
>> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x30
>> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x31
>> (WW) AIGLX: 3D driver claims to not support visual 0x32
>> 
>> I'm running Mesa-7.0.3 and xorg-server-1.4.2 on
>> GNU/Linux-2.6.23.11-rt14.
>> 
>> Is there some documentation on what these "visuals" correspond to?. Is
>> it actual hardware that doesn't support something or is it the driver
>> not having implemented certain features?.

A "visual" in OpenGL is a specific framebuffer configuration, including the
color bit depth, Z-buffer bit depth, presence/absence of a stencil buffer, etc.
It's more or less equivalent to a "pixel format" in Microsoft D3D, though I
think an OpenGL visual encompasses more things (some of which are
independent of the pixel format in D3D, others of which don't conceptually
exist at all in that API)

Those AIGLX warnings are harmless and don't mean that your 3D support
isn't working.  In fact, they don't even mean that your card doesn't support
those visuals.  Someone else will have to explain why they get printed, but
as far as I know they're "completely cosmetic".

> Wow, I used to have a card very much like that, but after a year of 
> waiting the DRI driver never worked. -- it would instantly and 
> completely crash the machine even during the most trivial operations 
> possible such as loading glxgears or even glxinfo. It would even crash 
> openoffice because it made some openGL call or other. =P Even for the 
> few brief weeks it did work, the lighting was glitchy, and it had too 
> many other bugs. =(
> 
> I eventually gave up waiting and bought a Nvidia 5300 and used the 
> proprietary drivers. Later I upgraded to a 7300 and am quite pleased 
> with it. My motherboard is now 5 years old so I can't upgrade my card 
> any further... My best advice to you is to abandon hope that the open 
> source driver will ever work and just break down and get yourself the 
> best nvidia card your mobo can support... Even with AGP 4x, I can still 
> support a 7300 (to my surprise and delight!). I'm now a daily user of 
> Second Life, google earth, and several other programs, all of which work 
> pretty damn well...

I'm sorry, but I think that on this mailing list this could be construed as trolling.
The person you're replying to isn't complaining that anything doesn't work,
he's only asking what some log messages mean, and you're telling him to throw
away his (presumably working) DRI-supported card and buy a different card
with proprietary drivers.

--AWJ--
_________________________________________________________________
If you like crossword puzzles, then you'll love Flexicon, a game which combines four overlapping crossword puzzles into one!
http://g.msn.ca/ca55/208
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
--