From owner-freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Tue Apr 14 10:26:57 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F5DD2BC525 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:26:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491hVn12bNz40LC for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:26:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 239792BC524; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:26:57 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: x11@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2361A2BC523 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:26:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 491hVn0FNGz40L9 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:26:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03CD839AA for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:26:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 03EAQua6044754 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:26:56 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 03EAQuU0044751 for x11@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:26:56 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: x11@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 237642] x11-drivers/xf86-video-ati: Upgrade from 18.1.0 to 19.0.0 results in invisible mouse pointer Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:26:56 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: danfe@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: In Progress X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: x11@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:26:57 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D237642 --- Comment #31 from Alexey Dokuchaev --- > I'm also curious if this is a problem only with drm-legacy-kmod, > or also with drm-kmod. I've tried building graphics/drm-fbsd11.2-kmod on my 13-CURRENT, which is b= ased on Linux 4.11 code and thus should suck less than 4.16 one, but that was wishful thinking. There were some error messages on the console before the screen went blank and machine locked up, I'd have to see if this contribute= s to the problem. > I wonder if drmIoctl() in libdrm needs to be rewritten on FreeBSD, > to return errno or -errno rather than the return value of the actual > ioctl() call. No. drmIoctl() should follow ioctl() semantics and return -1 while passing= the error code in errno. Introducing DRM_IOCTL() was kind of ugly, but breaking drmIoctl() would be even worse. The previous code was correct; when Michel D=C3=A4nzer decided to bypass ex= isting API and call drmIoctl() directly, he should have updated the code to check = for error condition properly instead of comparing return value with what would = be in the errno. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=