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

Bug#185207: XFree86 problems with 3dfx Voodoo3 on a Performa6400



Hi Brandon

Thanks again - I fully understand you have limited resources, I guess both
time and hardware. I also would not suggest to leave it out of the build.

A couple of comments though:

The 3dfx card is the same as the PC card of the same name - 3dfx just made
mac-drivers for (some of) the 3dfx boards when were still in business. I
have seen (on the web), that several have had success with the 3dfx and
Linux (e.g. Yellow Dog), but I cannot find any Debian Linux examples. This
means, that it should be possible with Debian somehow - right? I'm fairly
new to Linux, so I guess I have to learn as I go - but I've been a
(embedded) software professional for more than 20 years, so I should have a
change :-)

The 6400 is equipped with a Valkyrie chip, so I can try that one. However I
do not have a clue of what to specify as the (PCI-) address to get to this
chip instead of the 3dfx board. But I might use the mailing lists and see
what I can find out.

I will let you know if I do any progress, just for the record. I think I
have to experiment a bit with building and installing a new kernel anyway,
since I need drivers for the Tulip ethernet chip on the network card in comm
slot 2 of the mac.

Again thanks for your help - overall the Debian Linux has been a positive
experiment - as long as I stay with the ol' text based console interface.

regards, Soren

> From: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>
> Reply-To: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>, 185207-quiet@bugs.debian.org
> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:16:26 -0500
> To: 185207-submitter@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: Bug#185207: XFree86 problems with 3dfx Voodoo3 on a Performa6400
> Resent-From: Debian BTS <debbugs@master.debian.org>
> Resent-To: Søren Ilsøe <si@post4.tele.dk>
> Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:18:32 GMT
> 
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:09:17PM +0100, S?ren Ils?e wrote:
>> Thanks for the prompt response. I have already searched the archives (and
>> also other sources using google and alltheweb) but I cannot find any useful
>> config. files. Those I have tried does not work for me.
>> 
>> However, since the tdfx driver is included in the Debian distribution I
>> would expect it should be possible to use it, or?
> 
> Well, you *are* using it.  Just not successfully.  I only have a limited
> amount of hardware at my disposal; if I disabled everything I didn't
> have personal experience with, I'd have a lot of unhappy users.
> 
> If the consensus on the debian-powerpc mailing list is that the tdfx
> driver doesn't work for anyone, period, then yes, I'll turn it off in
> future builds.  But the upstream default is to build it for PowerPC, and
> I don't second-guess upstream without reason.
> 
>> Do you know what to do if I would use the native graphics board on the
>> Powermac 6400?
> 
> This question is probably better directed to the debian-powerpc mailing
> list.  Keep in mind that you're not just limited to searching web
> archives of the list for answers; you can subscribe to the list and ask
> your own questions if you can't find any evidence that they've been
> asked before.
> 
> I thought all of the OldWorld PowerMacs had onboard video via chips
> called Chaos, Control, or Valkyrie (or embedded ATI chips).  As far as I
> know those are all supported via the kernel's fbcon drivers, so you can
> use the XFree86 fbdev driver with those, if nothing else.
> 
>> As far as I can read from the documentation I would need an
>> external PCI graphics board (which the 3dfx Voodoo3 is).
> 
> Is it one made specifically for Macs, or is it a PC Voodoo3?
> 
>> Do you have any hints about where the problem could be?
> 
> Not really; the log wasn't very helpful, unfortunately.
> 
> -- 
> G. Branden Robinson                |     Reality is what refuses to go away
> Debian GNU/Linux                   |     when I stop believing in it.
> branden@debian.org                 |     -- Philip K. Dick
> http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
> 





Reply to: