Hi All,
Just in case anyone is interested, ATI has released version 3.2.5 of
their FireGL driver for XFree86. The driver supports all their high end
graphics cards. This is the first version that has DRM support for the
2.6 series of kernels.
Sorry for the noise.
MikaL
man, 08.09.2003 kl. 18.05 skrev Mika Liljeberg:
> Hi All,
>
> Just in case anyone is interested, ATI has released version 3.2.5 of
> their FireGL driver for XFree86. The driver supports all their high end
> graphics cards. This is the first version that has DRM support for the
> 2.6 series of kernels.
Well.. Not really :)
chevrolet:/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x# make
make -C /lib/modules/2.6.0-test4/build
SUBDIRS=/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x modules
make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.0-test4'
make[2]: `arch/i386/kernel/asm-offsets.s' is up to date.
*** Warning: Overriding SUBDIRS on the command line can cause
*** inconsistencies
CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/agp3.o
CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/nvidia-agp.o
CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/agpgart_be.o
CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/i7505-agp.o
CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.o
/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c: In function
`firegl_stub_open':
/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:421: error: called
object is not a function
/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c: In function
`__ke_inode_rdev_minor':
/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:847: warning:
implicit declaration of function `minor'
make[2]: *** [/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.o] Error
1
make[1]: *** [/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.0-test4'
make: *** [kmod_build] Error 2
chevrolet:/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x#
Regards,
Stian
On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 21:18, Stian Jordet wrote:
> > Just in case anyone is interested, ATI has released version 3.2.5 of
> > their FireGL driver for XFree86. The driver supports all their high end
> > graphics cards. This is the first version that has DRM support for the
> > 2.6 series of kernels.
>
> Well.. Not really :)
>
> chevrolet:/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x# make
...
> make: *** [kmod_build] Error 2
> chevrolet:/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x#
Hmm. I did manage to build it, although I got my version from here
instead of ATI's site:
http://www.schneider-digital.de/html/download_ati.html
Maybe there's a difference. Using the new glue code, I also managed to
build a kernel module for the older 2.9.13 driver as 3.2.5 seems a bit
flakey with my radeon 9700 pro.
Cheers,
MikaL
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:18:01PM +0000, Stian Jordet wrote:
> man, 08.09.2003 kl. 18.05 skrev Mika Liljeberg:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Just in case anyone is interested, ATI has released version 3.2.5 of
> > their FireGL driver for XFree86. The driver supports all their high end
> > graphics cards. This is the first version that has DRM support for the
> > 2.6 series of kernels.
>
> Well.. Not really :)
>
> chevrolet:/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x# make
> make -C /lib/modules/2.6.0-test4/build
> SUBDIRS=/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x modules
> make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.0-test4'
> make[2]: `arch/i386/kernel/asm-offsets.s' is up to date.
> *** Warning: Overriding SUBDIRS on the command line can cause
> *** inconsistencies
> CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/agp3.o
> CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/nvidia-agp.o
> CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/agpgart_be.o
> CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/i7505-agp.o
> CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.o
Comedy. So the story so far..
- ATI grab 2.4.16's AGP driver.
- Working AGP3 support happens in 2.5
- ATI gets backported to 2.4 and 'munged'.
- Additional fixes go into 2.5
- ATI forwardport their trainwreck to 2.6.
It shouldn't have *any* need whatsoever to touch agpgart in 2.6.
The mind truly boggles.
Dave
--
Dave Jones http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
> Comedy. So the story so far..
>
> - ATI grab 2.4.16's AGP driver.
> - Working AGP3 support happens in 2.5
> - ATI gets backported to 2.4 and 'munged'.
> - Additional fixes go into 2.5
> - ATI forwardport their trainwreck to 2.6.
>
> It shouldn't have *any* need whatsoever to touch agpgart in 2.6.
isn't the 2.5 AGP GPL licensed? How can ATI then include it in a bin
only module ? ....
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:03:02PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > Comedy. So the story so far..
> >
> > - ATI grab 2.4.16's AGP driver.
> > - Working AGP3 support happens in 2.5
> > - ATI gets backported to 2.4 and 'munged'.
> > - Additional fixes go into 2.5
> > - ATI forwardport their trainwreck to 2.6.
> >
> > It shouldn't have *any* need whatsoever to touch agpgart in 2.6.
>
> isn't the 2.5 AGP GPL licensed? How can ATI then include it in a bin
> only module ? ....
They do some pretty evil stuff like..
+#ifdef STANDALONE_MODULE
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")
+#endif
Some of the folks at ATI really seem to be quite clued and 'get it'
(Like those responsible for sorting out the Radeon IGP GART driver).
On the other side of the coin the FireGL driver folks just get worse
every time. If they actually *tried* to communicate with the community
what they need from agpgart that its so obviously lacking, then there'd
be no need for any of this nonsense.
Dave
--
Dave Jones http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
> isn't the 2.5 AGP GPL licensed? How can ATI then include it in a bin
> only module ? ....
The ATI drivers are NOT binary-only! agpgart (modified by ATI, I suppose) is
included in form of sourcecode, being compiled on installation. Dunno what
else could violate GPL :)
Greetings,
Dennis
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 12:47:02AM +0200, Dennis Freise wrote:
> > isn't the 2.5 AGP GPL licensed? How can ATI then include it in a bin
> > only module ? ....
>
> The ATI drivers are NOT binary-only!
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/projects/agp/binary.shtml
> agpgart (modified by ATI, I suppose) is
> included in form of sourcecode, being compiled on installation. Dunno what
> else could violate GPL :)
Linking GPL code to binary .o files, and then disabling the
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") smells pretty fishy to me.
Dave
--
Dave Jones http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
> > The ATI drivers are NOT binary-only!
> http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/projects/agp/binary.shtml
Mhh, ATI seriously sucks. Really.
> Linking GPL code to binary .o files, and then disabling the
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") smells pretty fishy to me.
This whole situation stinks - ATI plays games with open source, using the
free parts to complement their own components and on the other hand prevent
implementation by kernel-developers... maybe there should be more talking
going on between hardware-manufacturers and linux-developers, because my
ATI-GraKa (9800 Pro) STILL does not work - not with 2.4.x, not with 2.6.x,
even with all the newest versions (problem not based on ATI drivers, but on
agpgart KT400 / AGP3 issues)
Since all compoments do work on W*nd*ws, I seriously wonder how much M$ pays
to ATI to prevent linux-driver development.
My apologies for being wrong about the bin-only-part...
Greetings,
Dennis
On Llu, 2003-09-08 at 23:54, Dave Jones wrote:
> > agpgart (modified by ATI, I suppose) is
> > included in form of sourcecode, being compiled on installation. Dunno what
> > else could violate GPL :)
>
> Linking GPL code to binary .o files, and then disabling the
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") smells pretty fishy to me.
If all the code they include is their own then they could have dual
licensed it. If not and they are modifying core kernel code to add hooks
for their code they aren't likely to get past the preliminary arguments
about a GPL violation and it being a derivative work.
On Maw, 2003-09-09 at 00:07, Dennis Freise wrote:
> Since all compoments do work on W*nd*ws, I seriously wonder how much M$ pays
> to ATI to prevent linux-driver development.
Official conspiracy theory:
ATI do open source drivers
ATI reported to be winning Xbox next gen contract
ATI do binary drivers
although I don't belive it to be the case. NVidia and ATI are locked in
a mad battle to win the video space. Relax buy slower intel stuff and
wait for commoditisation of onboard video to eliminate them both 8)
Alan
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 02:04:47AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Maw, 2003-09-09 at 00:07, Dennis Freise wrote:
> > Since all compoments do work on W*nd*ws, I seriously wonder how much M$ pays
> > to ATI to prevent linux-driver development.
>
> Official conspiracy theory:
> ATI do open source drivers
> ATI reported to be winning Xbox next gen contract
> ATI do binary drivers
>
> although I don't belive it to be the case. NVidia and ATI are locked in
> a mad battle to win the video space. Relax buy slower intel stuff and
> wait for commoditisation of onboard video to eliminate them both 8)
So when will AMD get in the game? ;)
On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 21:04, Alan Cox wrote:
> although I don't belive it to be the case. NVidia and ATI are locked in
> a mad battle to win the video space. Relax buy slower intel stuff and
> wait for commoditisation of onboard video to eliminate them both 8)
Is that a real possibility?? I wonder when Intel will embed the keyboard
in the CPU...
mat?as
--
mat?as <-> http://matiu.com.ar
I wonder when we won't need a keyboard or any other (visible) components in
general
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 02:25 am, Matias Alejo Garcia wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 21:04, Alan Cox wrote:
> > although I don't belive it to be the case. NVidia and ATI are locked in
> > a mad battle to win the video space. Relax buy slower intel stuff and
> > wait for commoditisation of onboard video to eliminate them both 8)
>
> Is that a real possibility?? I wonder when Intel will embed the keyboard
> in the CPU...
>
> mat?as
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 02:02:25AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Linking GPL code to binary .o files, and then disabling the
> > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") smells pretty fishy to me.
>
> If all the code they include is their own then they could have dual
> licensed it. If not and they are modifying core kernel code to add hooks
> for their code they aren't likely to get past the preliminary arguments
> about a GPL violation and it being a derivative work.
For one it links in the GPL'd nvidia GART module.
Dave
--
Dave Jones http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 02:04:47AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Maw, 2003-09-09 at 00:07, Dennis Freise wrote:
> > > Since all compoments do work on W*nd*ws, I seriously wonder how much M$ pays
> > > to ATI to prevent linux-driver development.
> >
> > Official conspiracy theory:
> > ATI do open source drivers
> > ATI reported to be winning Xbox next gen contract
> > ATI do binary drivers
> >
> > although I don't belive it to be the case. NVidia and ATI are locked in
> > a mad battle to win the video space. Relax buy slower intel stuff and
> > wait for commoditisation of onboard video to eliminate them both 8)
>
> So when will AMD get in the game? ;)
I guess as soon as they can put enough transistors on one die to accomodate
dual cores, 8 MB L2 cache, and a graphics core...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
On Maw, 2003-09-09 at 08:50, Dave Jones wrote:
> > If all the code they include is their own then they could have dual
> > licensed it. If not and they are modifying core kernel code to add hooks
> > for their code they aren't likely to get past the preliminary arguments
> > about a GPL violation and it being a derivative work.
>
> For one it links in the GPL'd nvidia GART module.
I suggest you raise that with Nvidia ;)
On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 10:50, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 02:02:25AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > Linking GPL code to binary .o files, and then disabling the
> > > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") smells pretty fishy to me.
> >
> > If all the code they include is their own then they could have dual
> > licensed it. If not and they are modifying core kernel code to add hooks
> > for their code they aren't likely to get past the preliminary arguments
> > about a GPL violation and it being a derivative work.
>
> For one it links in the GPL'd nvidia GART module.
Hmm, dunno about that:
$ grep -i license nvidia-agp.c
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights");
All the rest seems to be under a BSD style license.
MikaL
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 08:41:47PM +0300, Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> > For one it links in the GPL'd nvidia GART module.
> Hmm, dunno about that:
> $ grep -i license nvidia-agp.c
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights");
> All the rest seems to be under a BSD style license.
The 'additional rights' on AGPGART come from the time when
it was in the XFree86 tree. If anything its dual-license
GPL & X11. The problem with 'additional rights' tags in
drivers is they rarely state what those rights are.
Dave
--
Dave Jones http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 20:53, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 08:41:47PM +0300, Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> > > For one it links in the GPL'd nvidia GART module.
> > Hmm, dunno about that:
> > $ grep -i license nvidia-agp.c
> > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL and additional rights");
> > All the rest seems to be under a BSD style license.
>
> The 'additional rights' on AGPGART come from the time when
> it was in the XFree86 tree. If anything its dual-license
> GPL & X11. The problem with 'additional rights' tags in
> drivers is they rarely state what those rights are.
Yeah, it's all wonderfully vague. If there are 'additional rights' I
would expect to see the exact license (or a reference to the license) at
the top of each source file.
MikaL
On Maw, 2003-09-09 at 19:16, Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> Yeah, it's all wonderfully vague. If there are 'additional rights' I
> would expect to see the exact license (or a reference to the license) at
> the top of each source file.
That was always the assumption. The original problem was to find a
string to match which verified you got GPL rights but at the same time
kept people granting more rights happy that the string was correct.