Re: No X Windows on PowerBook G3 Help!
> Because I am a newbee and understand that recompiling the 2.2.20 kernel
> would involve a lot of effort and time, I would like to know if the original
> kernel in use can work with my Wallstreet by just making some adjustments in
> the XF86Config-4 file or not.
Nope, in the case I described X cannot use the video chipset at all so the
X server gives up. Without some cleanup of the PCI resource allocation
this won't change.
Please note that I'm just guessing at the cause of your problems here.
What I'd need to see to confirm that guess is the output of lspci -vv run
as root (please send by PM).
> If it is hopeless to follow this way, I will have to patch and compile and
> whatever a new Kernel (v.2.4.10 ?). At the moment I have still no idea how
If my guess is right, you will need a patched kernel. How you get that
patched kernel is quite another issue. Michel already mentioned the proper
way to search for and install 2.4 kernels on powerpc.
I'll have to check the Debian kernel sources to see if a patch is already
available in 2.4 kernels (for all I know, 2.4 kernels could deal with PCI
resource conflicts a lot better than 2.2 kernels).
> to do that. I think I will have to read a lot of HOWTO's and spend a lot of
> precious time with this matter.
It took a lot of precious time to debug the problem and come up with a
patch the first time around on my Lombard. Moreover, it takes still some
more time to keep tracking new kernel releases and adapt the patch to the
new releases. Pardon me if I don't keep up with this all the time.
> Michaels Hint uses a lot of techie expressions I never have heard of before,
> but they sound great.
>
> Why hasn't anybody made a precompiled binary? I will never understand this
> aspect of Debian.
But there are precompiled kernel packages. If the patch in question isn't
in there it's because it only affected a small number of people, and I've
not pushed very hard for it to get included.
Anyway, it's all guesswork so let's see some real proof the bug is as I
suspect it is ...
Michael
Reply to: