Re: G400 DRI?
>> 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.
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.
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.
> 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 which comes in the kernel source when it's probably outdated and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.
HTH,
Marcelo
Reply to: