[ fbsd_x11 ] replacing the present intel(4x) driver with a newer one

[Paul B Mahol]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:47 AM, spellberg_robert
<emailrob at emailrob.com> wrote:
> greetings all ---
>
> the point of this inquiry is to learn if
>  i am on the right track in my thinking,
>  before i start doing a lot of work.
>
>
>
> fbsd 6.4 has xorg 7.3, while fbsd 7.3 and 8.0 have xorg 7.4.
>
> my new intel moboes are g41 and g31.
> while the g41 has some extra features that are important to me, personally,
>  my big intention is to build two to four dozen boxen with
>  a minimal mobo [ and everything else ] to keep the cost down,
>  for a certain application.
> all i need is "snazzy" 2d_graphics for xterm(1).
>
> the intel driver on 6.3 is version 2.4.2.
> the x.log file reports that this version supports
>  the intel chipsets q45, q43, q35, q33, g45, g43, g35, g33.
> the man_page says that it supports q35, q33 qnd g33 [ no mention of the
> other five ].
> the man_page says that it is for version 2.4.2
>  [ maybe the comments did not get revised when the code was revised ? ].
>
> this driver, 2.4.2, does not work on my g41, so, i am using the vesa(4x)
> driver,
>  which produces a nice 1600 x 1200 @ 60 on my new 1920 x 1200 lcd.
> however, ten_year_old equipment, using a r128(4x) agp_card,
>  that had been driving a trinitron with 1600 x 1200 @ 85,
>  had no problem producing 1920 x 1200 @ 60 for the lcd.
> if ten_year_old equipment can produce something like this, why not the new
> stuff ?
> --this-- is the focus of my inquiry.
> i want those 320 pixels.
>
>
>
> on the fbsd web_site, i find the man_page intel(4x) for xorg 7.4.
> it claims driver version 2.6.3,
>  supporting q45, q35, q33, g45, g43, g41, g35, g33.
> where is the q43 ?
> is it no longer supported [ but, the 800's and 900's are ?  go figure ] ?
> maybe this man_page is also inaccurate.
> it says that it supports my g41, which is probably true.
> maybe it supports the g31, as well.
> then again, maybe, it does not.
>
> i --could-- build a bunch of different boxen and see what happens, but,
>  right now, i do not have the time to go "up the garden_path" several times.
>
>
>
> at this place
>
>    http://xorg.freedesktop.org/archive/individual/driver/
>
>  i find a plethora of intel drivers.
>
> i also found this place
>
>    http://intellinuxgraphics.org/download.html
>
>  as well as many other places, strongly related to these two.
>
>
>
> it is frequently the case that
>  an older_driver is the limiting factor between
>  otherwise capable newer_software and newer_hardware.
> i suspect that x will do what i want and that
>  the two chipsets, g41 and g31, will do what i want.
>
> so, i gets to thinkin', what if i were to go get one or more tarballs,
>  say, the last revision of the last two or three versions
>  [ that would be 2.10, 2.9, 2.8 or there_abouts ].
>
> question :
>
>        if i download, extract, read the "readme", verify that it supports
> the chipset,
>          et cetera, et cetera, et cetera [ in the usual way ];
>  >-->  if i cause a newer driver to be found by
>  >-->    the x 7.3 on fbsd 6.4 or
>  >-->    the x 7.4 on fbsd 7.3;
>        am i likely to have success in being able to use the newer driver
>          [ because it recognizes the chipset ],
>          perhaps, getting the 320 pixels that i desire and,
>          perhaps, getting a bunch o' extra_features
>          [ of which i am presently un_aware ] ?
>
>    or
>
>        is this version of x so "tightly wound" that
>          i would have to change way_too_many_things to get this idea to
> work,
>          reducing this to be too much effort for the result ?
>
>
>
> thanx whole bunches [ please cc ].

I don't really know what driver version will work for you but newest
intel drivers(newer than in ports) are not supported at all because of
missing features in FreeBSD kernel. It is possible (not easy) to
backport new version of driver to current kernel state.

IMHO current Xorg is one big mess, wait another 10 years until it grows up.