Xorg log message: Radeon, DRM, re-init

[Joe Altman]

Dec. 16th log:

joe on anna ~ $: ll /var/log/Xorg.0.log
root wheel 46031 Dec 16 21:06 /var/log/Xorg.0.log

Old log:
root wheel 43990 Dec  9 01:20 Xorg.0.log.old

This message is from the new log, dated Dec 16, and appears at least
five times, with the last one being approximately at 21:06 p.m. EST:

(WW) RADEON(0): [RESUME] Cannot re-init Radeon hardware, DRM too old (need 1.9.0  or newer)

It does not appear, at all, in the log from Dec 9.

joe on anna ~ $: uname -a
FreeBSD anna.chthonixia.net 4.10-STABLE FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE #0: Wed
Nov 24 22:47:52 EST 2004

So whatever it is, it appears to have originated well after the last
update to the world. I don't update bits and pieces; I do the whole
thing all at once: kernel, userland, ports, everything.

Looking further, it appears to have something to do w/ switching to
and from VTs:

joe on anna ~ $: ll /var/log/Xorg.0.log

root  wheel 46333 Dec 16 21:28 Xorg.0.log

Google results:

http://penguinppc.org/~daenzer/DRI/applied/radeon-resume-cleanup.diff

@@ -1304,168 +1328,38 @@ int radeon_do_cleanup_cp( drm_device_t *
 /* This code will reinit the Radeon CP hardware after a resume from
 disc.  
* This patch is NOT to be confused with my and Michel Daenzer's
 earlier DRI reinit work, which de- and re-initialised the complete
 DRI at every VT switch.

So what is it telling me, other than switching from X to a VT and back
to X means that the hardware cannot be "re-inited"? In some thread,
there was some mention of a memory leak, or what appeared to be a
memory leak, related to this. Would a memory leak account for this:

joe on anna ~ $: top
last pid: 14454;  load averages:  0.00,  0.00,  0.00 up 7+20:31:36
21:53:37
55 processes:  3 running, 52 sleeping
CPU states:  2.3% user,  0.0% nice,  2.7% system,  0.4% interrupt,
94.6% idle
Mem: 214M Active, 410M Inact, 97M Wired, 27M Cache, 86M Buf,
4288K Free
Swap: 1008M Total, 52K Used, 1008M Free

PID USERNAME PRI NICE  SIZE    RES STATE    TIME   WCPU    CPU COMMAND
164 joe        2   0   100M 92924K RUN     85:18  0.05%  0.05% Xorg

Xorg at 100 Meg. Good, bad, irrelevant?

BTW: it's interesting; but doesn't appear to me to be crucial. I'm
mostly curious about the whole thing.