LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   General (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)
-   -   can't install newest radeon driver on kernel 2.6.11; what's up with this? (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/cant-install-newest-radeon-driver-on-kernel-2-6-11%3B-whats-up-with-this-301124/)

schatoor 03-13-2005 12:25 PM

can't install newest radeon driver on kernel 2.6.11; what's up with this?
 
I'm been using linux now for 3 years and have grown quite experienced with it. The box i'm working on right now has linux from scratch running on it, which I installed using knoppix running from CD. I managed to setup all my hardware and software just as I want it, from cups and alsa to the firewall. So I know what i'm doing when i'm tweeking on my linux box.
But for the love of God... I haven't managed to install the new graphicscard driver from ATi since I'm using kernel 2.6.11, atleast not in any decent way. After searching the net for hours and hours I found out I had to apply several patches to the driver code to get it to compile and inserted in to the kernel. The problem is; a) there are patches flying all over the net supposedly to make the damn thing compatible with the latest kernel, leaving me clueless as to which patch to apply and b) non, and I do mean NON of the patches apply cleanly. IF I'm lucky, I might end up with code that compiles (while spitting out all kinds of compile warnings in the process) in to something that resembles a kernel module but is so buggy it either leads to system crashes when I try to use opengl, or something that refuses to get inserted in to the kernel due to "unresolved symbols".
What the hell is up with this? It turns out they (the kernel guy's) have changed a few things in the bit that handles AGP stuff in the kernel, making it impossible to compile the fglrx kernel modules without applying any patches. Well thank you kernel hackers... If I were a newbie just comming from windows, I would go back screaming and vowing never to set foot in linuxland again!
The moral of my story is that the kernel guy's should really think about what effect changing stuff in the kernel might have on kernel modules from third parties. A number of hardware developers make their own, propierity, closed sourced drivers (ATI, NVIDIA) as well as some software makers (VMWare)

Well, thats my story... Don't flame me please. If i'm wrong, please tell me so

Matteuz 03-13-2005 01:35 PM

Same problem
 
I have the same problem, unable to build the module. (Haven't even had time to search for any patches yet.)
It just gives huge piles of errors from the .c -files and then quits with error code 2 :confused:

-Matteuz

vharishankar 03-13-2005 08:45 PM

Err...
schatoor, I got the drivers to work in 2.6.10 with absolutely no problems and with direct rendering on. I haven't used 2.6.11, but surely they wouldn't have changed it that much?!?

What steps did you exactly take? Also did you earlier install the drivers with 2.4?

vharishankar 03-13-2005 08:58 PM

The real issue seems to be ATi's insistence on compiling their module on each and every system the driver needs to be installed on. So all ATi users should have the kernel sources installed?! Why so? Why should each and every Linux user have the kernel sources installed just to install a third party proprietary driver?

The whole approach of ATi seems to be wrong here.

Haven't nVidia created drivers that are easy to install and doesn't need the kernel sources to be installed? I would think that blaming the kernel developers for bad driver design by ATi is a bit harsh.

vharishankar 03-13-2005 09:58 PM

After seeing some of the other threads, it definitely seems that 2.6.11 kernel has some problems with compiling the ATi driver.

Best solution is to use 2.6.10. It works and it's not really that old yet ;)

J.W. 03-13-2005 09:59 PM

Re: can't install newest radeon driver on kernel 2.6.11; what's up with this?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by schatoor
The moral of my story is that the kernel guy's should really think about what effect changing stuff in the kernel might have on kernel modules from third parties. A number of hardware developers make their own, propierity, closed sourced drivers (ATI, NVIDIA) as well as some software makers (VMWare)
.... Or, alternatively, rather than to criticize the "kernel guys', maybe the hardware manufacturers like ATI could actually decide to support Linux and release drivers that were a.) easy to install, and b.) actually work. -- J.W.

vharishankar 03-13-2005 10:02 PM

Yes, J.W. That's right.

My point is that why should each and every system have the kernel sources installed for the ATi driver to work?

Doesn't nVidia provide easy to install drivers? Not sure, but most proprietary device drivers I have seen so far in Linux don't need to compile with the kernel.

It's just a poor driver design in ATi's case.

Megamieuwsel 03-13-2005 11:23 PM

Quote:

Doesn't nVidia provide easy to install drivers? Not sure, but most proprietary device drivers I have seen so far in Linux don't need to compile with the kernel.
The NVidia-drivers need to have the kernel-headers installed properly.
Other than that , they're a breeze to install.

schatoor 03-14-2005 04:20 AM

Quote:

Err...
schatoor, I got the drivers to work in 2.6.10 with absolutely no problems and with direct rendering on. I haven't used 2.6.11, but surely they wouldn't have changed it that much?!?

What steps did you exactly take? Also did you earlier install the drivers with 2.4?
Yes I know the situation with 2.6.10 is alot better then with 2.6.11. Just try the latest kernel and then try to re-install the ATi drivers... If you are able to, pleace tell me how you did it :)

What steps did I take? here is a link to the thread I started to get this problem solved.
So how is nvidia's driver working with 2.6.11? any experiences anyone?

Quote:

The real issue seems to be ATi's insistence on compiling their module on each and every system the driver needs to be installed on.
The driver absolutly HAS to be compiled on each an every unique system. If the driver is compiled for a certain kernel, it most definitly won't work on another. If the kernel version is different or the options with which the kernels compiled were different, a driver for one kernel won't, in general, work with the other kernel.

vharishankar 03-14-2005 04:26 AM

Hmmm....

I simply cannot believe how many issues arise with the ATi drivers.

Mind you, on Gentoo, it was the easiest to install (no rpm, just emerge ati-drivers and edited the xorg.conf file to include the fglrx driver and it worked perfectly.

In Debian, I used the deb package with 2.4 kernel and the ATi fglrx version is 3.14.6. Downloaded from this site: http://xoomer.virgilio.it/flavio.sta...installer.html (now they have an updated version there).

So both ways I haven't tried the RPM directly from ATI.com so I may not be having the latest version of the driver.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 AM.