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

Re: debian-powerpc: Apple Titanium notebooks ?



On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 10:59:14AM -0700, Grant Hollingworth wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 12:51:14PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > Yep, X4 should make you happy (it's also in testing BTW ;), I hope you can use
> > this modeline I found somewhere:
> >     Modeline "1152x768" 89.9 1152 1216 1472 1680 768 868 876 892 -HSync -VSync
> 
> I'm running X 4.0.2 from unstable. I grabbed the XF86Config from
> http://www.linuxppc.org/documentation/2000Q4/titanium.php3, which has
> this modeline:
> 
> Modeline "1152x768" 78.741 1152 1173 1269 1440 768 769 772 800 +Hsync +Vsync
> 
> I'm also using the kernel (2.4.2) from that page. Does anyone know what
> source it was built from? I'd rather put my own kernel together. This
> is my first time running PPC Linux, though, so I'm not sure if I can use
> the kernel.org source or not.

 There are a lot of PPC fixes that haven't been merged into Linus's tree.
Have a look at http://www.linuxcare.com.au/paulus/kernels.html and
http://www.fsmlabs.com/linuxppcbk.html.  (The instructions for rsync given
on the fsmlabs page don't work.  I was able to get the kernel with
bitkeeper, though.  To compile it, I had to  bk extract  it to another
directory, since bitkeeper has all the filenames as s.foo instead of foo.)

 I haven't gotten the enhanced RTC driver to work on my SMP powermac in any
of the 2.4 kernels I've tried.  I get unresolved symbols when linking if I
try to put it in the kernel, or in rtc.o when I have it as a module.  I've
also had problems with building NFS or smbfs as modules with some kernels.
(Are these known problems, or should I be telling people about this?)

-- 
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ;  e-mail: X(peter@llama.nslug. , ns.ca)

"The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours!
 Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack
 my day so wretchedly into small pieces!" -- Plautus, 200 BCE



Reply to: