From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <4339161D.4010607@intracom.gr> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:51:25 +0300 From: Pantelis Antoniou MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Mackerras References: <17208.37250.577664.621993@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20050927082324.GA11437@lst.de> <17209.817.732159.375607@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <43390DDC.7090701@cs.helsinki.fi> <4339104E.7050705@intracom.gr> <17209.5879.121421.718258@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <17209.5879.121421.718258@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Heikki Lindholm , linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: Starting the arch/powerpc merge List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Paul Mackerras wrote: > Pantelis Antoniou writes: > > >>Count me in too; using a 970 in 32 bit mode, because of gentoo X.org >>problems in 64 bit mode. > > > I'm using an X.org server on a ppc64 kernel, and it all works, > including DRI. Both 32-bit and 64-bit X server and clients work. We > now have the 32-bit ioctl compatibility sorted out in the kernel DRM. > So I don't think X is a reason to run a 32-bit kernel any more. > > What X.org problems do you see with a 64-bit kernel? > > Paul. > > > I didn't really tried a very recent kernel, I tried it about a month ago, and it didn't work. Could be a gentoo problem for all I know. Since I don't have time to debug these kind of problems, it's really nice to know that it now works :). No worries then. Regards Pantelis