Hi,
I know this is a little bit OT here, and if you feel irritated by the
binary drivers, just ignore this. But in case anyone is interested, here
are some patches I did that make the the 64-bit fglrx module compile
(cleanly, at least for me) on 2.6.15-git3 and it seems to work here
(Mobile Radeon 9600, Athlon64), no guarantee though, you're just going to
have to try and see yourselfs. ;)
(Compile with the ./c script, clean with the ./b script, don't forget to
make them executable!)
The 32-bit variant may follow later.
Martin
On Llu, 2006-01-09 at 17:47 +0100, Martin Drab wrote:
> I know this is a little bit OT here, and if you feel irritated by the
> binary drivers, just ignore this.
Not just offtopic but completely unacceptable in this case.
There are people on these lists who work on free software R300 reverse
engineering work. They do not look at and do not want to be exposed in
any way to proprietary ATI code.
Please don't do this again or if you do post the patches somewhere and
send a message indicating where they can be found.
Alan
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:47:01PM +0100, Martin Drab wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know this is a little bit OT here, and if you feel irritated by the
> binary drivers, just ignore this. But in case anyone is interested, here
> are some patches I did that make the the 64-bit fglrx module compile
> (cleanly, at least for me) on 2.6.15-git3 and it seems to work here
> (Mobile Radeon 9600, Athlon64), no guarantee though, you're just going to
> have to try and see yourselfs. ;)
> ....
> +#if 0
> module_init(agp_via_init);
> module_exit(agp_via_cleanup);
>
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> MODULE_AUTHOR("Dave Jones <[email protected]>");
> +#endif
If you must assist ATI in continuing to abuse the GPL in code
that I've written, please do it somewhere that I don't have
to read about it.
Dave
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Llu, 2006-01-09 at 17:47 +0100, Martin Drab wrote:
> > I know this is a little bit OT here, and if you feel irritated by the
> > binary drivers, just ignore this.
>
> Not just offtopic but completely unacceptable in this case.
OK, understood, my appologies.
> There are people on these lists who work on free software R300 reverse
> engineering work. They do not look at and do not want to be exposed in
> any way to proprietary ATI code.
OK (BTW: These were just patches to the open source wrapper of the binary
drivers, which has to be GPL, since it's a deriver work - at least to my
knowlege, though IANAL, so there should be no part of a proprietary code.)
> Please don't do this again or if you do post the patches somewhere and
> send a message indicating where they can be found.
OK, sorry, won't do that again.
(I did so only because not long ago there were some postings here from
people unable to compile it with 2.6.15 kernels, so now that I was forced
to patch it (for various irrelevant reasons) I thought someone else may
want to try it as well. But, OK, wouldn't post it again, no problem.)
Martin
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 05:47:01PM +0100, Martin Drab wrote:
> >
> > I know this is a little bit OT here, and if you feel irritated by the
> > binary drivers, just ignore this. But in case anyone is interested, here
> > are some patches I did that make the the 64-bit fglrx module compile
> > (cleanly, at least for me) on 2.6.15-git3 and it seems to work here
> > (Mobile Radeon 9600, Athlon64), no guarantee though, you're just going to
> > have to try and see yourselfs. ;)
> > ....
> > +#if 0
> > module_init(agp_via_init);
> > module_exit(agp_via_cleanup);
> >
> > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> > MODULE_AUTHOR("Dave Jones <[email protected]>");
> > +#endif
>
> If you must assist ATI in continuing to abuse the GPL in code
> that I've written, please do it somewhere that I don't have
> to read about it.
Ah, yes, sorry, I was surprised myself to see this there. It wasn't and
isn't my intention to help ATI in this, sorry.
I'm going to have to think twice next time before doing something. :)
Martin