Bug#738487: hppa patch for ATI FireGL in C8000 workstation
Package: linux
Version: 3.13
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hello,
this is a follow-up to bug http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=721191
In that bugzilla I originally asked to add the following config entries to ./debian/config/hppa/config.parisc64-smp:
+# and for ATI FireGL DRM in C8000 workstation
+CONFIG_DRM_RADEON=m
+CONFIG_AGP=y
+CONFIG_AGP_PARISC=y
+CONFIG_VGA_ARB=y
+CONFIG_VGA_ARB_MAX_GPUS=16
+CONFIG_DRM=y
+CONFIG_DRM_KMS_HELPER=y
+CONFIG_DRM_TTM=y
+CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_LCD_SUPPORT=y
In comment #55 (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=721191#55) Ben wrote:
>> +CONFIG_DRM=y
>
> Why should this be built-in?
On the C8000 an ATI FireGL is the only built-in GFX card and
it's only supported by the radeon DRM driver.
So, if the driver isn't built-in, you won't be able to see
the debian installer... [...]
The driver won't be built-in, as you're setting CONFIG_DRM_RADEON=m.
And it doesn't need to be built-in. It just needs to be in one of the
module packages that's included in the installer initramfs. I think
you'll need to create a new udeb for DRM drivers and then add this to
the package lists for hppa images in the d-i repository.
And in comment #70 (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=721191#70) Ben wrote:
- AGP/DRM are now modules. Otherwise we don't have any output on the C8000 machines.
You might yet need to make them built-in, as nothing else ensures that
AGP devices are initialised before DRM devices.
In the meantime I was now able to build a debian-installer-cd for hppa based on the 3.12.9 debian kernel.
It's available here: http://debian-ports.org/~deller/NETINST_CD_TRY4/
It works nicely on all machines, but as assumed, it's not useable on the C8000 workstation since the ATI drivers above aren't active and as such the user don't see anything on the screen.
(I wanted to get everything worked out with the generation of a boot-cd before going back to this kernel questions/suggestions above).
So, my question now is:
Do you still suggest I should go the way as suggested in comment #55: "I think you'll need to create a new udeb for DRM drivers..." ?
Is it then really ensured, that the drivers will then be loaded before the very first installer screen?
The backside with it from my point of view is then, that people will not see any boot messages before modules gets loaded and they might think the machine crashed. And if it crashed you will get no output either.
Please suggest.
(PS: If I should provide a udeb-patch, which existing udeb-modules would you suggest me to look at which would be similiar? -> I'm still learning here :-)).
Thanks,
Helge
Reply to: