Re: G400 DRI?
On Sun, Sep 24, 2000 at 01:12:48AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Joshua Shagam <joshagam@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
>
> > Okay, since posting my original message, I've found out (with
> > Marcelo Magallon's help) that I need to get a DRI driver which
> > matches interfaces with the XFree server. As far as I can tell,
> > the current Matrox driver (which is based on PI's CVS-current
> > driver) uses the 2.0.0 interface, whereas the .debs' server only
> > groks the 1.0.x interface. I have the mga.o kernel module from the
> > DRI project on Sourceforge compiled and everything, but there's the
> > interface mismatch so it does me no good...
>
> Somehow I got the impression you need/want to run 2.2.17. As someone
> else pointed out, the DRM modules have been incorporated into the
> 2.2.18 kernel source. I have no idea which version, though. The DRM
> modules out of the DRI CVS do compile with a whole range of kernels.
I want to run 2.2.17. I've had bad luck trying to get 2.4 working (I can't
seem to get it to boot all the way without a kernel panic), and 2.2.18
doesn't seem to have any Debian packages (isn't it still in pre?). And
wouldn't the DRM modules in the kernel source be both quickly-outdated with
respect to the actual drivers? I tend to need the bleeding-edge features
of the 3D drivers (for me, 'Quake 3 working' isn't good enough).
> What I said was that the current XFree86 CVS tree got merged into the
> current DRI CVS tree recently. As far as I have noticed, the reverse
> has not happened yet. Branden takes updates from the XFree86 tree.
> That means you'll have to wait until the DRI CVS tree is merged on
> the XFree86 CVS tree. The other possilibity is, I just realized,
> take the DRM modules from a not-so-recent 2.4 kernel (test8 does the
> trick) because the modules with the 2.0.0 interface hasn't been
> merged on the current kernel source. Last time I checked this would
> compile on a 2.2 kernel provided you use the correct Makefile.
Hm, there's an idea. (And that gets back to why I'm not too happy about
the kernel including the DRM drivers. :)
> If Matrox is providing source, it's possible that they are providing
> the sources with the old interface, too. I wish I could give you
> more precise information but I have a Matrox card, but I'm sticking
> to the DRI CVS for work-related reasons.
Unfortunately, their whole source distribution seem sincredibly half-assed.
All they're doing is taking the CVS version of the XFree driver (including
DRM) and adding in their closed-source card init stuff which adds in
DualHead and video out but seems to break returning into textmode (and I
use neither DualHead nor video out).
> > private email. Also, why would I want to use the 1.0.x version
> > which comes in the kernel source when it's probably outdated and
> > not full-featured, and not likely to get updated very often anyway?
>
> The two versions are not that different in fact. The interfaces are
> just not compatible with each other.
Okay, so for now the 1.0.x driver should have all the same rendering
features as the 2.0.0 driver? I'll have to see if the Beta1 from Matrox
includes the old 1.0.0 DRM, then, since that seem sto be the general
impression... (I've only tried their Beta3, which is 2.0.0.)
Thanks.
--
Joshua Shagam /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
joshagam@cs.nmsu.edu \ / No HTML/RTF in email
www.cs.nmsu.edu/~joshagam X No Word docs in email
/ \ Respect for open standards
Reply to: