xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Daily XFS CVS RPMS

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Daily XFS CVS RPMS
From: "D. Stimits" <stimits@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 16:41:53 -0600
References: <200110192316.XAA00329@groucho.maths.monash.edu.au> <3BD0BD18.2272B325@idcomm.com>
Reply-to: stimits@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
"D. Stimits" wrote:
> 
> Robin Humble wrote:
> >
> > D. Stimits writes:
> > >I haven't tried the newer kernels, but I was under the impression that
> > >instead of altering the DRM, a choice was going to be presented to use
> > >either the 4.0.x XFree86 version or the 4.1.x XFree86 version, making
> >
> > The -ac kernels give you a choice, but the Linus kernels only give you
> > the new DRM (agpgart) version which doesn't work with XFree 4.0.* and
> > hence your tuxracer goes slow. At least mine certainly did :)
> > If your distro has XF 4.1.* (any yet?) then a newer kernel isn't a problem.
> 
> That sucks, I don't want to lose DRM if I multiboot between kernels that
> have 4.1.x and 4.0.x. Somehow I doubt running both versions is easy or
> reasonable. I wonder if NVidia has its DRM out yet for 4.1.x (I guess
> SGI is a big participant in DRM area).

I should rephrase things. I'm am so dependent on OpenGL that without it,
I would have to abandon all future software that breaks it. If this
means XFS, or Redhat, or 2.4.x kernels over a certain release, then that
is the way it goes. Hardware OpenGL is not an option, it is a
requirement.

D. Stimits, stimits@xxxxxxxxxx

> 
> >
> > >them a choice. Is this patch somehow different?
> >
> > This patch is pulled from the -ac series and lets you choose to build
> > an agpgart kernel module (+ drivers for specific cards) as a version
> > suitable for XFree 4.0.* or for XFree 4.1.* ... the idea being that
> > it's WAY hard to upgrade your X 'cos of all the dependancies, and
> > instead it's easier to downgrade the agpgart in newer kernels to
> > match the old XFree4.0.*
> > ie. it lets the mainstream (and XFS) kernel have the same choices as
> > the Alan Cox kernels.
> 
> I've heard there are difficulties in having a kernel that simultaneously
> supports both DRM models, though part of it is a matter of naming. I
> certainly can't upgrade to any kernel that doesn't have 4.0.x DRM
> ability (at least not if NVidia drivers are not available). Since I'm
> using XFS, whatever I use has to be XFS as well.
> 
> D. Stimits, stimits@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> >
> > cheers,
> > robin


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>