My bad...hit "reply" instead of "reply-all"<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">S C Rigler</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:riglersc@gmail.com">riglersc@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
Date: Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 11:57 AM<br>Subject: Re: [PlanetCCRMA] fc12: new kernel in testing (based on 2.6.33-rt7)<br>To: Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <<a href="mailto:nando@ccrma.stanford.edu">nando@ccrma.stanford.edu</a>><br>
<br><br><div class="im">On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nando@ccrma.stanford.edu" target="_blank">nando@ccrma.stanford.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
An interesting change (that may affect users) is that nouveau (the<br>
reverse engineered driver for Nvidia video cards) is now part of the<br>
kernel source tree, so the rt patch includes it, so it is now part of<br>
the Planet CCRMA rt kernels. If you use the binary driver you may need<br>
to blacklist the nouveau kernel module so it does not interfere with the<br>
nvidia module.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I don't think the proprietary driver will compile against it. I've been testing vanilla 2.6.33 and 2.6.33-rtx for the past couple of weeks for other reasons (my brand new Toshiba laptop is turning into a real POS and I'm having to test acpi patches just to get it to boot) and I've found that:<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>1. The "unsafe" 195.36.08 proprietary driver will compile just fine against vanilla 2.6.33 but not 2.6.33-rtx</div><div>2. The "safe" 190.53 driver will compile against everything up to 2.6.32 but, for some reason, can't find a 2.6.33 source tree.</div>
<div><br></div><div>--Steve</div>
</div><br>