which driver you are using - /var/log/Xorg.0.log tells you this

run

tazpkg get-install  xorg-xf86-video-mach64 --forced 

to reinstall the driver

Thanks for your reply, Kultex.

The log has many references to mach 64. I'll only mention two.

Early on, there's: "Loading /usr/lib/X11/modules/drivers//mach64_drv.so". However, later, there's: '[drm] failed to load kernel module "mach64"'.

I checked and mach64_drv.so does indeed exist. Whether it existed before, I can't say, but I did force the installation of the mach64 package, as you suggested.

Also, modprobe -l still doesn't show mach64 as a loadable module.

Thanks again, Kultex. I'd really appreciate being told how to proceed now.

just follow the howto - http://doc.slitaz.org/en:guides:xorg-xvesa

load the modules with modprobe - whatever you need mach64, agp?, dri? and restart X - to make your changes permanent, all modules have to be added to the SliTaz Control Box under Initialization in “Load Modules”.

Thanks for your further reply, kultex.

I've read the howto yet again and lots else besides since my earlier posts. I think I now understand my log file a bit better.

I AM using the mach64 driver; however, what the log file's telling me is that
I'm not using drm/dri.

As to whether I'm using the mach64 driver, it seems that it doesn't have to appear in lsmod to be loaded and in use. An xfree86 document says,

"The XFree86 X server has a built-in run-time loader, which can load normal object files and libraries in most of the commonly used formats. The loader does not rely on an operating system's native dynamic loader support and it works on platforms that do not provide this feature. This allows for the modules to be operating system independent (although not, of course, CPU architecture independent) which means that a module compiled on Linux/x86 can be loaded by an X server running on Solaris/x86, or FreeBSD, or even OS/2."

My understanding now is that, provided my xorg.conf file names mach64 as my video driver, that driver will be loaded without worrying about modprobe. That would seem to be confirmed by the fact that, when I was using the vesa driver, it didn't appear in lsmod either.

As to not using drm/dri, my log file has the following entries:

(II) MACH64(0): [drm] SAREA 2200+1208: 3408
drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device)
drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device)
drmOpenDevice: Open failed
drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device)
drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device)
drmOpenDevice: Open failed
[drm] failed to load kernel module "mach64"
(EE) [drm] drmOpen failed.
(EE) MACH64(0): [dri] DRIScreenInit Failed

I've tried to figure out how to overcome that problem, but failed.

My attempt involved installing mesa-dri-ati, which got me a file called /usr/lib/dri/mach64_dri.so. I then set LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH to the path to that file. Things I read on the Web suggested that that might get DRM/DRI going, but it didn't. (I'd also followed the relevant steps in the howto.)

If you have any further suggestions for me as to how to get DRM/DRI going, I'd be grateful.

Thanks again,

Leslie

What does

ls -l /dev/dri/card0

tell you?

if it's absent, you could tryfinding out (e.g. by loading a livecd from another distro or doing searches) what the mknod codes should be.

Cheers.

thats the dri/drm problem - also described in the howto ....

# rm /dev/dri
# mkdir /dev/dri/
# addgroup tux video

@UR10: it tells me that there's no such file or directory. As to finding out what the mknod codes should be: (1) doing searches hasn't found an answer to that; and (2) I'd try another distro's livecd, but I tried SliTaz because the laptop I'm using it on has only 128MB of RAM. If you can suggest another distro that might be suitable for the experiment, I'd be happy to give it a go.

More generally, what I've read tells me that some module, when loaded, adds card0 to /dev/dri. I'm guessing that it might be the mach64_dri module and that the line in the log, '[drm] failed to load kernel module "mach64"' is really referring in the context to mach64_dri.

@kultex: yes, I am ignorant, but, no, I'm not stupid. I'd taken those steps, following the howto, even before writing my original post

I'd suggest puppy linux. Searching that, however, yields a mixed answer:


http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=14450&sid=268171bd5a3290eb533b07e71c5c4e25
>>>>
http://dotpups.de/tests/mach64-DRM-k2.6.18.1.tar.gz
[...]
The mach64 driver does work in earlier versions of Puppy: definitely in versions 1.0.4-1.0.9, and maybe 2.0 & 2.01.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=13627
<<<<<<br />
Although the current version might--you'd have to try it to find out. That page also says that what I was going to suggest (below) didn't solve it in that case. Still, it might be worth a try.

As for other distros, xubuntu is semi-lightweight (but not nearly so as slitaz), wrt mach64 see:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=506258

you might look at:
http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=46571

- - -
[what DIDN'T work on puppy 2.12 but you might try:]
boot and look through dmesg for anything about mach64 or dri.

on one of my boxes (s3 not mach64) a different distro had 226, 0. I double checked and this is consistent with the link below.

try

reference:

http://www.lanana.org/docs/device-list/devices-2.6+.txt

- - -

hth

Thanks for your latest reply, UR10.

I tried Puppy Linux 5.01, Crunchbang 9.04 and Knoppix 6.2, all on livecd. The second wouldn't boot (though there was nothing wrong with the CD; it booted in a computer with more RAM); in the first and the third, direct rendering was disabled, according to the relevant log.

However, I did find this post: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showpost.php?p=1310387&postcount=63

It seems to supply the information that you suggested in your earlier post I should try to find.

According to the SliTaz Handbook, it further seems that I should be putting the commands mentioned in that post into /etc/init.d/local.sh.

However, I don't know how to do that, given that they're all to be preceded by becoming root.

Any suggestions as to how I overcome that problem?

Thanks again,

Leslie

hope you've found this by now...

~$ su

to become root.

(sudo su on other livedistros)