Dave Airlie wrote:
> Well the main thing is that on a 64-bit/kernel and 64-bit X that X starts
> and DRI is enabled in the Xorg.0.log... if you send me the Xorg.0.log it
> would be most helpful...
Attached. I can also test with an r300 board if
you need it.
> The DRIRec is Mesa and X.org out o
> I've just rebuilt everything from CVS on my x86_64 box:
>
> - X starts with direct rendering enabled (it used to
>crash just a few days before);
>
> - The latest Mesa appears to be out of sync with DRM:
>
> ERROR! sizeof(RADEONDRIRec) does not match passed size from device driver
>
>
Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>still works...
>>
>>Define "pure 64-bit". AFAIK, the only truly pure 64-bit system is that
>>Alpha, but I don't think that's what you mean. :) Do you mean 64-bit
>>kernel & 64-bit X-server?
>
>
> Well a 64-bit kernel and 64-bit X and 64-bit glxgears linked against
> 64-bit
> > still works...
>
> Define "pure 64-bit". AFAIK, the only truly pure 64-bit system is that
> Alpha, but I don't think that's what you mean. :) Do you mean 64-bit
> kernel & 64-bit X-server?
Well a 64-bit kernel and 64-bit X and 64-bit glxgears linked against
64-bit libGL with a 64-bit radeon_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dave Airlie wrote:
> If anyone has a pure 64-bit system with a working radeon DRI setup, I'd
> really appreciate if they could test 2.6.13-rc5-mm1 and see if radeon
> still works...
Define "pure 64-bit". AFAIK, the only truly pure 64-bit system is th
If anyone has a pure 64-bit system with a working radeon DRI setup, I'd
really appreciate if they could test 2.6.13-rc5-mm1 and see if radeon
still works...
I'm getting a report that I would like verified, but I've got no 64-bit
systems so I rely on the people who do to help out if they want a wo
