Re: G400 DRI?
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 22:45:41 Seth Arnold wrote: Joshua, first, let me make it clear I am far from knowledgeable about this subject. :) I am pretty sure I didn't do much special to get DRI working on my g400 max. I am running branden's .debs, the matrox driver, and kernel 2.4.0-test7. I ensured that the agpgart module and mga kernel module were going to be compiled, and then compiled and installed. Where did you get the Matrox binary drivers? There is only source in the Matrox homepage, but binaries are mentioned in the README. I don't want to compile the whole Xfree-sources ;) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: G400 DRI?
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000923 13:20]: Where did you get the Matrox binary drivers? There is only source in the Matrox homepage, but binaries are mentioned in the README. I don't want to compile the whole Xfree-sources ;) It took me a lot of searching on their webpage to find the little bugger. The URL is http://www.matrox.com/mga/support/drivers/files/linux_03.cfm -- in the future, if this URL changes (which I expect it will, URLs *always* change :) then the place to get this off their graphics card section is "Latest Drivers", then look in the linux column. There is a link to the binary driver underneath the license agreement. (Sadly, both mozilla and wget are having great difficulty getting the file! I wonder if neither of them uses passive mode... lftp worked though. :) Because their link has a notice about the license agreement, I am reluctant to paste the URL of the actual driver itself. I hope this helps. :) (If it doesn't, email me privately, and I suppose I could cut and paste their license as well as the URL to their driver.. I wouldn't feel too bad about that. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mesa Problem?
Travis Whitton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm using linux 2.4.0-test8 with DRI support and the r128 module(for my Rage 128 card). Whenever I run any Mesa based applications, they flicker constantly and improperly render certain parts of the screen. A good example of this behavior can be seen by running any of the xlock GL hacks. Same here. If your run (for example) gears as screen saver it looks like the back buffer is displayed instead of the front buffer. (Something like this :) gears in a window looks fine, is fast and doesn't flicker. Branden, I know that these packages aren't for general use, and that this problem probably falls somewhere in the low priority section. I also understand that you're very busy, so I don't expect this to be fixed right away. ACK. jojo -- Quitting vi is the most important command of that editor, and should be bound to something easy to type and available in all modes, for example the space bar. -- Per Abrahamsen
G400 DRI?
Hello, I've just upgraded my XFree 3.3.6 to 4.0.1 using these wonderful packages, and haven't had any problems. Except one... I need the DRI driver for my G400. Specifically, I'm trying to use Matrox's binary-distributed one, and as it turns out, they only distribute a binary version of the 2D driver (which makes sense, given the DRI's kernel module nature). The DRI driver is only in source. But I don't want to download 50 megs of XFree86 source on my 28.8 modem. :) Has anyone built the G400 DRI module against kernel 2.2.17? I don't even need this for game playing - I need this for my research. 3D graphics research really sucks on software Mesa. :) Any help would be greatly appreciated. Or perhaps if I could just get the necessary header files to build the module myself (I have the kernel source and I can always just make-kpkg). Also, in the future, how will DRI modules be packaged? Perhaps there will be an xfree-server-heards package so that one can simply download their favorite DRI module's source and then use make-kpkg to build it alongside their kernel? That seems to me to be the simplest way... Many thanks in advance. -- Joshua Shagam /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / No HTML/RTF in email www.cs.nmsu.edu/~joshagam X No Word docs in email / \ Respect for open standards
Re: G400 DRI?
Joshua, first, let me make it clear I am far from knowledgeable about this subject. :) I am pretty sure I didn't do much special to get DRI working on my g400 max. I am running branden's .debs, the matrox driver, and kernel 2.4.0-test7. I ensured that the agpgart module and mga kernel module were going to be compiled, and then compiled and installed. I think I was running DRI for a while there, because many dialog boxes on my primary display had some strange vertical bars -- a symptom of running DRI in a colordepth other than 16 (or is it other than 16 or 32?) Now that I run dual-head, I have to restart into single-head mode for DRI to work. Again, let me stress my ignorance. I managed to get q3demo to work at 30 to 50 fps in a window (I can't get it to full-screen, for some odd reason) -- so I figured DRI was working. :) HTH * Joshua Shagam [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000923 08:30]: Hello, I've just upgraded my XFree 3.3.6 to 4.0.1 using these wonderful packages, and haven't had any problems. Except one... I need the DRI driver for my G400. Specifically, I'm trying to use Matrox's binary-distributed one, and as it turns out, they only distribute a binary version of the 2D driver (which makes sense, given the DRI's kernel module nature). The DRI driver is only in source. But I don't want to download 50 megs of XFree86 source on my 28.8 modem. :) Has anyone built the G400 DRI module against kernel 2.2.17? I don't even need this for game playing - I need this for my research. 3D graphics research really sucks on software Mesa. :) Any help would be greatly appreciated. Or perhaps if I could just get the necessary header files to build the module myself (I have the kernel source and I can always just make-kpkg). Also, in the future, how will DRI modules be packaged? Perhaps there will be an xfree-server-heards package so that one can simply download their favorite DRI module's source and then use make-kpkg to build it alongside their kernel? That seems to me to be the simplest way... Many thanks in advance. -- Joshua Shagam /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / No HTML/RTF in email www.cs.nmsu.edu/~joshagam X No Word docs in email / \ Respect for open standards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: G400 DRI?
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 22:45:41 Seth Arnold wrote: Joshua, first, let me make it clear I am far from knowledgeable about this subject. :) I am pretty sure I didn't do much special to get DRI working on my g400 max. I am running branden's .debs, the matrox driver, and kernel 2.4.0-test7. I ensured that the agpgart module and mga kernel module were going to be compiled, and then compiled and installed. Where did you get the Matrox binary drivers? There is only source in the Matrox homepage, but binaries are mentioned in the README. I don't want to compile the whole Xfree-sources ;)
Re: G400 DRI?
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000923 13:20]: Where did you get the Matrox binary drivers? There is only source in the Matrox homepage, but binaries are mentioned in the README. I don't want to compile the whole Xfree-sources ;) It took me a lot of searching on their webpage to find the little bugger. The URL is http://www.matrox.com/mga/support/drivers/files/linux_03.cfm -- in the future, if this URL changes (which I expect it will, URLs *always* change :) then the place to get this off their graphics card section is Latest Drivers, then look in the linux column. There is a link to the binary driver underneath the license agreement. (Sadly, both mozilla and wget are having great difficulty getting the file! I wonder if neither of them uses passive mode... lftp worked though. :) Because their link has a notice about the license agreement, I am reluctant to paste the URL of the actual driver itself. I hope this helps. :) (If it doesn't, email me privately, and I suppose I could cut and paste their license as well as the URL to their driver.. I wouldn't feel too bad about that. :)
eo_EO added to locale.alias
Can we get eo_EO and eo_EO.ISO8859-3 added to locale.alias as aliases for eo_XX.ISO8859-3? It's not correct, as EO isn't a valid country code (if it is, we aren't using it as intended), but (Debian's) libc currently supports eo_EO and not eo_XX, and since the short-term fix is easier for X, I figured I'd ask here first. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http/ftp: dvdeug.dhis.org And crawling, on the planet's face, some insects called the human race. Lost in space, lost in time, and meaning. -- RHPS
Re: G400 DRI?
Okay, since posting my original message, I've found out (with Marcelo Magallon's help) that I need to get a DRI driver which matches interfaces with the XFree server. As far as I can tell, the current Matrox driver (which is based on PI's CVS-current driver) uses the 2.0.0 interface, whereas the .debs' server only groks the 1.0.x interface. I have the mga.o kernel module from the DRI project on Sourceforge compiled and everything, but there's the interface mismatch so it does me no good... When will the .debs' server grok DRM 2.0.0? Apparently this just requires it being updated with the latest XFree source tree, but I'm not quite sure I understood what Marcello had told me in private email. Also, why would I want to use the 1.0.x version which comes in the kernel source when it's probably outdated and not full-featured, and not likely to get updated very often anyway? FWIW, having the DRI source distributed along with the kernel source offends my sensibilities, for the same reason that distributing scanner and joystick drivers et al with the kernel does - these things aren't part of the kernel, they need to be updated separately and more often, and I don't want to have to download the entire kernel source to update my video driver. :P The whole current state of what's in the kernel source package is a rant for another day, though. -- Joshua Shagam /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / No HTML/RTF in email www.cs.nmsu.edu/~joshagam X No Word docs in email / \ Respect for open standards
Re: G400 DRI?
Joshua Shagam [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Okay, since posting my original message, I've found out (with Marcelo Magallon's help) that I need to get a DRI driver which matches interfaces with the XFree server. As far as I can tell, the current Matrox driver (which is based on PI's CVS-current driver) uses the 2.0.0 interface, whereas the .debs' server only groks the 1.0.x interface. I have the mga.o kernel module from the DRI project on Sourceforge compiled and everything, but there's the interface mismatch so it does me no good... Somehow I got the impression you need/want to run 2.2.17. As someone else pointed out, the DRM modules have been incorporated into the 2.2.18 kernel source. I have no idea which version, though. The DRM modules out of the DRI CVS do compile with a whole range of kernels. What I said was that the current XFree86 CVS tree got merged into the current DRI CVS tree recently. As far as I have noticed, the reverse has not happened yet. Branden takes updates from the XFree86 tree. That means you'll have to wait until the DRI CVS tree is merged on the XFree86 CVS tree. The other possilibity is, I just realized, take the DRM modules from a not-so-recent 2.4 kernel (test8 does the trick) because the modules with the 2.0.0 interface hasn't been merged on the current kernel source. Last time I checked this would compile on a 2.2 kernel provided you use the correct Makefile. If Matrox is providing source, it's possible that they are providing the sources with the old interface, too. I wish I could give you more precise information but I have a Matrox card, but I'm sticking to the DRI CVS for work-related reasons. private email. Also, why would I want to use the 1.0.x version which comes in the kernel source when it's probably outdated and not full-featured, and not likely to get updated very often anyway? The two versions are not that different in fact. The interfaces are just not compatible with each other. HTH, Marcelo
Various issues with 4.0.1-0phase2v8
1.) I recently upgraded to kernel 2.4.0-test9pre1, in doing so I rebuilt my mga.o drm module. At this point I was using 4.0.1-0phase2v7, and X would refuse to start, reporting DRM version = 2.0.0, expected 1.0.x. As of phase2v8, X starts fine, but I still recieve an error as follows: (EE) MGA(0): [drm] MGADRIScreenInit failed (DRM version = 2.0.0, expected 1.0.x). Disabling DRI. Obviously there is some kind of mismatch between the version of drm the X debs are expecting and the version that comes with 2.4.0-test9pre1. What confused me was the fact that the changes file for 4.0.1-0phase2v8 indicated that 4.0.1 wasn't actually being used, but that a cvs snapshot of X was, so I figured that it would be up to date enough to deal with this drm 2.0.0. 2.) Perhaps the most distressing issue is that since my upgrade from phase2v7 to v8 X is now once again leaking memory like a siv. This is a problem that I experienced while still using the 3.3.x X debs and was pleasantly surprised to see was fixed when I upgraded to 4.0.1-phase1. To illustrate the problem, when I start up X, with only my window manager running, a few dock apps, and a single Eterm, the RSS of X starts out at about 13 (note: my machine has 256m ram and 250m swap). As if this were not bad enough, I can watch as the RSS of X grows by about 100 every second. Right now, I am nothing additional open but my mail client (mutt in Eterm) and another Eterm and the usage is as follows: ??([EMAIL PROTECTED])?(pts)?(11:12am:09/22/00)?? ??(~) ps aux | grep X :0 root 18302 5.1 64.3 206520 164160 ? S10:53 1:01 X :0 The only thing I can think of is that since you are in the process of forward porting patches from the 3.3.x series debs that you inadvertently caused this problem to arrise again? Any light that you could shed on any of these issues would be greatly appreciated. Please don't let me sound demanding, Branden does an awesome job and helps to keep the rest of us operating at full lazy status. Keep up the good work. -- Porter p.s. Same problems with 4.0.1-0phase2v9.
Re: G400 DRI?
On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 01:12:48AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: Joshua Shagam [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Okay, since posting my original message, I've found out (with Marcelo Magallon's help) that I need to get a DRI driver which matches interfaces with the XFree server. As far as I can tell, the current Matrox driver (which is based on PI's CVS-current driver) uses the 2.0.0 interface, whereas the .debs' server only groks the 1.0.x interface. I have the mga.o kernel module from the DRI project on Sourceforge compiled and everything, but there's the interface mismatch so it does me no good... Somehow I got the impression you need/want to run 2.2.17. As someone else pointed out, the DRM modules have been incorporated into the 2.2.18 kernel source. I have no idea which version, though. The DRM modules out of the DRI CVS do compile with a whole range of kernels. I want to run 2.2.17. I've had bad luck trying to get 2.4 working (I can't seem to get it to boot all the way without a kernel panic), and 2.2.18 doesn't seem to have any Debian packages (isn't it still in pre?). And wouldn't the DRM modules in the kernel source be both quickly-outdated with respect to the actual drivers? I tend to need the bleeding-edge features of the 3D drivers (for me, 'Quake 3 working' isn't good enough). What I said was that the current XFree86 CVS tree got merged into the current DRI CVS tree recently. As far as I have noticed, the reverse has not happened yet. Branden takes updates from the XFree86 tree. That means you'll have to wait until the DRI CVS tree is merged on the XFree86 CVS tree. The other possilibity is, I just realized, take the DRM modules from a not-so-recent 2.4 kernel (test8 does the trick) because the modules with the 2.0.0 interface hasn't been merged on the current kernel source. Last time I checked this would compile on a 2.2 kernel provided you use the correct Makefile. Hm, there's an idea. (And that gets back to why I'm not too happy about the kernel including the DRM drivers. :) If Matrox is providing source, it's possible that they are providing the sources with the old interface, too. I wish I could give you more precise information but I have a Matrox card, but I'm sticking to the DRI CVS for work-related reasons. Unfortunately, their whole source distribution seem sincredibly half-assed. All they're doing is taking the CVS version of the XFree driver (including DRM) and adding in their closed-source card init stuff which adds in DualHead and video out but seems to break returning into textmode (and I use neither DualHead nor video out). private email. Also, why would I want to use the 1.0.x version which comes in the kernel source when it's probably outdated and not full-featured, and not likely to get updated very often anyway? The two versions are not that different in fact. The interfaces are just not compatible with each other. Okay, so for now the 1.0.x driver should have all the same rendering features as the 2.0.0 driver? I'll have to see if the Beta1 from Matrox includes the old 1.0.0 DRM, then, since that seem sto be the general impression... (I've only tried their Beta3, which is 2.0.0.) Thanks. -- Joshua Shagam /\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / No HTML/RTF in email www.cs.nmsu.edu/~joshagam X No Word docs in email / \ Respect for open standards
