HELP: 2.6 + radeon problems [was: Kernel 2.6 build error]

Stefan Bruda yellowdog-general@lists.terrasoftsolutions.com
Mon Feb 9 14:40:02 2004


At 19:29 +0100 on 2004-2-9 Albrecht Dre=DF wrote:
 >
 > Am 09.02.04 16:02 schrieb(en) Stefan Bruda:
 > > Trying for the first time to compile a 2.6 kernel (have extensive
 > > experience with 2.4 and below though), the build of 2.6.2-ben1 giv=
es
 > > back the following error:
 >=20
 > [error msg snipped]
 >=20
 > I saw the same problem, which disappeared when I defined DRM=5FRADEO=
N
 > as module:

Yep, worked here as well.  Thanks.  Still on the build stage, I am now
getting a multitude of undefined symbols in the sound modules.  I will
try next to compile all of those into the kernel, though I would
really like to have modules for sound.  Did this happens to you=3F

 > However, I was not able to get X11 (the 4.3.0-2.1e set of rpm's)
 > running with this configuration - startx ejects before the monitor
 > (a formac 1740 dfp) is probed when running it with a 2.4 kernel
 > (where X works fine; see attached msg sent to the list a few days
 > ago. The situation didn't change with 2.6.2-ben1).

As far as I know the radeon modules changed from 2.4.x to 2.6, but
this should not happen in any case.  I booted with the brand new 2.6
and video worked just as it used to with 2.4.  The difference appears
to be that I am using XFree86 version 4.3.99.902 (4.4.0 RC 2).  Seems
like a whole lot changed from 4.3.0 (which also predates 2.6), so you
could try to compile a new XFree86.

Another difference is that I am on a Tibook, and thus my display is
the built-in LCD, and I am passing no video arguments to the kernel.

Also, I am using the XFree86 code for radeon kernel modules under 2.4,
if the problem persists you can try this with your 2.6.

These are just suggestions and comments, I just booted 2.6 and then
reverted promptly to my ol' 2.4 because of lack of time, so I do not
have much experience on the matter.

Hope this helps a bit,
Stefan

--=20
If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as
it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.
    --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass