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

Re: Rage Mobility DRI problem



Benjamin Fritzsche <BFritzsche@gmx.de> wrote:

> looks to me like yu don't have the linux sources on your machine.
> get the linux sources an make a .config file according to your kernel.

I unpacked sources and configured a new kernel. I built several kernels with varying .config files. The problem is, I can't get a kernel that is as good as my stock 2.4.18-bf2.4. Can I get the .config for the 2.4.18-bf2.4 kernel from somewhere? Because this would be a good starting point for the new configuration.

   phil


> On Sunday 06 October 2002 14:30, Philipp Haller wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > My Rage Mobility (in my IBM A22e) belongs to the mach64 chipset family, so
> > I went to http://dri.sf.net/snapshots/bleeding-edge/ and downloaded the
> > last snapshot for mach64. But when I launch ./install.sh I get the
> > following error when trying to compile the DRM kernel modules:
> >
> > The script will now compile the DRM kernel modules for your machine.
> >
> > Press ENTER to continue or CTRL-C to exit.
> >
> >
> > Compiling...
> > ERROR: Kernel modules did not compile
> >
> > The DRI drivers can not be installed without the latest kernel modules.
> > Installation will be aborted. See the dri.log file for information on
> > what went wrong.
> >
> > tpa22e:/home/phil/dripkg# cat dri.log
> > cc -O2 -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align
> > -Wstrict-prototypes -Wnested-externs -Wpointer-arith -D__KERNEL__ -DMODULE
> > -fomit-frame-pointer -DEXPORT_SYMTAB -I0 -c mach64_drv.c -o mach64_drv.o In
> > file included from drmP.h:43,
> >                  from mach64_drv.c:32:
> > /usr/include/linux/module.h:21: linux/modversions.h: No such file or
> > directory make: *** [mach64_drv.o] Error 1
> >
> > I run a stock Debian 3.0 woody installation with kernel-2.4.18-bf2.4. I
> > installed kernel-headers-2.4.18-bf2.4 and kernel-source-2.4.18 but the file
> > linux/modversions.h is still missing. Can anybody help?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >    phil
> 



Reply to: