Trying to follow the ATI FAQ, I discovered a couple of things that should be corrected. First: Section 2 says, "For a 2.6.x kernel the DRI modules can be built with the kernel or be provided by the x11-drm ebuild". However, attempting to emerge x11-drm results in the message, "Please link //usr/src/linux to 2.4 kernel sources. x11-drm does not yet work with 2.6 kernels, use the DRM in the kernel." (x11-drm-4.3.0-r7, which is what I get on stable PPC) Either the FAQ or the ebuild should probably be fixed. Second: Section 2 also says: > (If you want just the Rage128 drivers and modules installed with X11) > # VIDEO_CARDS="rage128" emerge x11-drm However, the correct flag for VIDEO_CARDS appears to be "r128" (as of x11-base/xorg-server-1.1.1).
CCing the X11 drivers herd to provide more information -- is this an ebuild problem only, a documentation problem only, or a combination? The referenced stable 4.3.0 ebuild has IUSE r128 but _not_ radeon, while its allowed VIDEO_CARDS includes "radeon", so the guide should work with it. However, this appears to not be the case. I notice that later 200x ~arch drivers all definitely have the right stuff to work with this guide, so what's wrong here? What should be fixed, if anything?
This ATI faq documentation bug got me, too: New/modular X refused to start until I removed it and rebuilt it with 'VIDEO_CARDS="r128"' (instead of "rage128" as documented in the "Gentoo Linux ATI Faq"). (i386/p3 system, clean/new install of 2006.1.) Probably as expected, I had to uninstall the metapackage (xorg-x11), update world, emerge --depclean, and reinstall, in order to run X: # emerge --unmerge xorg-x11 # emerge --update --deep --newuse world # emerge --depclean # revdep-rebuild # emerge xorg-x11
Created attachment 98774 [details, diff] ati-faq.xml.diff I don't know about comment #0 's first problem, but the rage128 vs r128 is definitely a GDP bug. Here's a diff.
s/rage128/r128/ done with a funny typo in the cvs log, sorry :)
(In reply to comment #4) > s/rage128/r128/ done with a funny typo in the cvs log, sorry :) > So, is it all fix0red now, as the saying goes?
I tripled checked the x11-drm ebuild, and it should indeed be r128. This was fixed by neysx back in October; looks like the final closing of the bug was overlooked. Closing, thanks to neysx for fixing it. :)
