Re: 4.2.0pre1v1 debs, dri support, intel i810
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
Re: 4.2.0pre1v1 debs, dri support, intel i810
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
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
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
