[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Official ATI Driver : problem build fglrx module



Hi Sylvain,

El jue, 07-07-2005 a las 22:52 +0200, Sylvain Archenault escribió:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hello everybody,
> 
> I would like to know if there is somebody who have succeeded to compile
> the module. I download the driver on ati official website :
> fglrx64_4_3_0-8.14.13-1.x86_64.rpm

Yes, I have. I installed Flavio Stanchina's Debian package from source
(http://xoomer.virgilio.it/flavio.stanchina/debian/fglrx-installer.html), followed all the instructions until the point where you build the module, then ran "m-a autoinstall fglrx" and stopped it (Ctrl-S) right after it finished uncompressing the archive. While this process was on hold I applied some of the patches from this thread (1) (http://ati.cchtml.com/show_bug.cgi?id=136, which seems to be down momentarily), then resumed the m-a process. The resulting module works with the kernel's AGPGART using the same setup that I had for kernel 2.6.11.

1) Look at one of my last comments in the ATI thread for a list of what
patches to apply. Don't apply the "integrated" patch, as it's missing
the important part that makes it work with the kernel's AGPGART.

Maybe somebody can recommend a better way to handle the
stopping/resuming of module-assistant. I couldn't find an option to stop
it from unpacking the sources every time and I was too lazy to patch the
tarball directly.

> I read that the problem may be due to gcc, actually i use gcc-4.0, and i
> compile a kernel with this version of gcc, So i think i have to keep
> this version.

Try gcc-4.0 with the previous patches, but if it doesn't work then you
might have to switch back to 3.4 or 3.3. I'm using 3.3 personally
because I was lazy to have make-kpkg use gcc-3.4.

Greetings,
-- 
Javier Kohen <jkohen@users.sourceforge.net>
ICQ: blashyrkh #2361802
Jabber: jkohen@jabber.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: