Re: 4.2.0pre1v1 debs, dri support, intel i810

2002-07-31 Thread Michel Dänzer
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 19:00, Michael Cardenas wrote: 
 
 We're trying to use your pre1v1 debs here at lindows, and our qa dept
 found that the intel i810 card is not accelerated for 3d. 
 
 I found in /var/log/XFree86.0.log that the i810 X module wanted
 version 1.2.0 of the i810 kernel module, and I found the kernel patch
 on xfree86.org for the kernel modules. 
 
 Unfortunately, after upgrading the kernel drm modules to 1.2.0, 3d
 acceleration still didn't work. Using LIBGL_DEBUG=verbose I found
 that the dri module is version 1.1.0. I'm not sure if its version
 needs to be the same as the drm module, but if so, there's no obvious
 error reported. 

It doesn't need to be the same version. All DRI component versions are
checked and errors printed if they don't allow for direct rendering.

 I just wanted to ask if there's a reason that the 4.2.0 pre1v1 debs
 weren't compiled against the updated 1.2.0 kernel modules?

It's not a matter of compiling against the kernel modules, on the
contrary the source for them is in the XFree86 tree. The problems are
that most kernel trees haven't been updated to the DRM versions required
for 4.2.0 yet and the modules need to be built against the headers of the
running kernel. The latter could be solved with a kernel module source
package for use with kernel-package.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member   /  CS student, Free Software enthusiast



Re: 4.2.0pre1v1 debs, dri support, intel i810

2002-07-31 Thread Michael Cardenas
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 09:57:48PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
...
  I just wanted to ask if there's a reason that the 4.2.0 pre1v1 debs
  weren't compiled against the updated 1.2.0 kernel modules?
 
 It's not a matter of compiling against the kernel modules, on the
 contrary the source for them is in the XFree86 tree. The problems are
 that most kernel trees haven't been updated to the DRM versions required
 for 4.2.0 yet and the modules need to be built against the headers of the
 running kernel. The latter could be solved with a kernel module source
 package for use with kernel-package.
 
 

Are you saying that the dri modules in xfree86 need to be compiled
against the headers of the running kernel?

If I've updated my kernel modules to be the 1.2.0 versions, with the
patch from xfree86.org, then do I need to recompile the xfree86 debs
against the patched kernel source?

thanks for the help!

michael

-- 
michael cardenas
lead software engineer
lindows.com
.
hyperpoem.net
.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
-Mahatma Gandhi




Re: 4.2.0pre1v1 debs, dri support, intel i810

2002-07-31 Thread Branden Robinson
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 01:26:01PM -0700, Michael Cardenas wrote:
 Are you saying that the dri modules in xfree86 need to be compiled
 against the headers of the running kernel?

No, the DRI modules in XFree86 need to be *written* against the new
version of the interface.  This is not a compliation-environment issue.
It's source code issue.

 If I've updated my kernel modules to be the 1.2.0 versions, with the
 patch from xfree86.org, then do I need to recompile the xfree86 debs
 against the patched kernel source?

It wouldn't do any good.  Your kernel is ahead of your XFree86/Mesa DRI
modules.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|The errors of great men are
Debian GNU/Linux   |venerable because they are more
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |fruitful than the truths of little
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |men. -- Friedrich Nietzsche


pgp2oyyn2Wwjq.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: 4.2.0pre1v1 debs, dri support, intel i810

2002-07-31 Thread Michel Dänzer
On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 22:26, Michael Cardenas wrote:
 On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 09:57:48PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
 ...
   I just wanted to ask if there's a reason that the 4.2.0 pre1v1 debs
   weren't compiled against the updated 1.2.0 kernel modules?
  
  It's not a matter of compiling against the kernel modules, on the
  contrary the source for them is in the XFree86 tree. The problems are
  that most kernel trees haven't been updated to the DRM versions required
  for 4.2.0 yet and the modules need to be built against the headers of the
  running kernel. The latter could be solved with a kernel module source
  package for use with kernel-package.
  
  
 
 Are you saying that the dri modules in xfree86 need to be compiled
 against the headers of the running kernel?
 
 If I've updated my kernel modules to be the 1.2.0 versions, with the
 patch from xfree86.org, then do I need to recompile the xfree86 debs
 against the patched kernel source?

No, just the DRM kernel modules.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member   /  CS student, Free Software enthusiast



4.2.0pre1v1 debs, dri support, intel i810

2002-07-30 Thread Michael Cardenas
Hello everyone. 

We're trying to use your pre1v1 debs here at lindows, and our qa dept
found that the intel i810 card is not accelerated for 3d. 

I found in /var/log/XFree86.0.log that the i810 X module wanted
version 1.2.0 of the i810 kernel module, and I found the kernel patch
on xfree86.org for the kernel modules. 

Unfortunately, after upgrading the kernel drm modules to 1.2.0, 3d
acceleration still didn't work. Using LIBGL_DEBUG=verbose I found
that the dri module is version 1.1.0. I'm not sure if its version
needs to be the same as the drm module, but if so, there's no obvious
error reported. 

I just wanted to ask if there's a reason that the 4.2.0 pre1v1 debs
weren't compiled against the updated 1.2.0 kernel modules? Do you 
think it will work without them? Did you try using them and they 
didn't work? We're using a 2.4.18 kernel and xlibmesa3 is installed. 

Also, is anyone using an intel i810 with dri support successfully? I'm
using a radeon on my laptop, and the dri seems to work fine there. Is
anyone using any cards with dri acceleration with the new 4.2.0 debs?

Any light you could shed on the sitatuion would be great, as I'm
trying to make it work on my end, so maybe I can help you make the
package better. 

Also, I tried to get our qa dept to contact debian-x or debian-testing
in order to offer their qa results to you guys, if they're of use, but
I don't think they got around to it. Would you be interested in our qa
results?

thanks for your time

  michael

-- 
michael cardenas
lead software engineer
lindows.com
.
hyperpoem.net
.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
-Mahatma Gandhi