> > drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0 > > drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device) > > drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device) > > drmOpenDevice: Open failed
Do I need a new udev to handle that? My base system is LFS-6.6. (I've looked at udev specs, decided to stay out!) > > [drm] failed to load kernel module "mach64" <--------------- > > (II) ATI(0): [drm] drmOpen failed > > (EE) ATI(0): [dri] DRIScreenInit Failed > > > Looks as if FB_ATY (and perhaps some of its options) really is what > you need. I would try rebuilding with that. OK, answer me this, I got the impression the frame-buffer abstraction is something to be avoided if possible--though if I'm interpreting what I see right when the popular "kitchen-sink" distros boot and the console font changes, that's what they're doing. It provides some extended "compatibility" but at the cost of some native capabilities. I'm not building this system to run on everything in the world, as they are, but I would like to be able to drop it onto what I might put together from the i686 era up, and have it usable. Should I be going the frame-buffer route to make that happen? > > Looks as if FB_ATY (and perhaps some of its options) really is what > > you need. I would try rebuilding with that. > > > Or not. Further down my list of google results was a link to an old > debian problem, which mentioned that Mach64 is not built because of > security issues, and referenced > http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/ATIMach64 > > See 'Why isn't Mach64 built by default?' on that page. I would guess > that the separate mach64 driver in more recent xorg probably works, > and that this page is obsolete but relevant to xorg-7.2. The link to > the mini-HOWTO is dead. As it happens, my own searches yesterday took me through that page too. > If you agree with my analysis of what that page might mean, I guess > you could try to build the oldest release of xf86-video-mach64 > (6.8.0, or 6.8.2 which probably has more fixes but might have newer > dependencies). I suspect that they will need newer dependencies, > but it is probably worth trying to build them in case they work for > you. The alternatives are to do without dri, or to use a newer > version of xorg. Tried xorg-7.5, that's why I'm now trying 7.2. ;-) But, yes, I think I've been thinking along those lines too. I happened to have 6.12.4, ran a diff and grepped for mach64. Saw the call to the kernel module had been removed. I was thinking of doing a binary search between 6.6.3 and 6.12.4 looking for where the mach64 module was first removed and checking into that. Gives me something to try today, pending answers for above. -- Paul Rogers [email protected] http://www.xprt.net/~pgrogers/ Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL :-) -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different... -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
