Package Details: nvidia-340xx-dkms 340.108-18

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: nvidia-340xx
Description: NVIDIA driver sources for linux, 340xx legacy branch
Upstream URL:
Licenses: custom
Conflicts: nvidia, nvidia-340xx
Provides: nvidia-340xx=340.108
Submitter: simonsmh
Maintainer: JerryXiao (graysky)
Last Packager: graysky
Votes: 51
Popularity: 3.61
First Submitted: 2019-06-07 10:29
Last Updated: 2021-02-25 19:40

Required by (7)

Sources (7)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 ... Next › Last »

jayache80 commented on 2021-05-09 10:09

I think I know why I'm having problems on 5.11/5.12 but not 5.10. I noticed in the system log on 5.10 that DRM is getting initialized properly:

[drm] Initialized nvidia-drm 0.0.0 20150116 for 0000:02:00.0 on minor 0

However, no such output in 5.11/5.12 when using this kernel module. That stuff is taken care of in nv-drm.c starting essentially with the call to nv_drm_pci_init from nv_drm_pci_init but only when #if defined(NV_DRM_AVAILABLE). I proved it wasn't being called with some printk's.

Something seems a little strange with the build system as that is defined in 5.10 but is not defined when building 5.11/5.12. I even added


to the top of nv-drm.c to no avail. It's probably something really simple and I'll bet this will fix my issues (but I don't know about anyone else's).

Anyone know what's up with that define?

MegaDeKay commented on 2021-05-08 15:03

Back in March on 5.11, people were having luck with GTK based greeters but Qt based ones weren't working (e.g. SDDM). So Googling around the error that @jayache80 reported, I found some references to people having weird problems with Qt that were fixed with setting QT_X11_NO_MITSHM=1 in someplace like /etc/environment. Maybe this explains why some people have luck and some don't? I'll admit that this is far-fetched, but it might be worth a shot given that it is low effort to try. The rabbit hole I went down are in the links below. Disabling the nvidia splash screen with Option "NoLogo" "1" in xorg.conf might not help, but it wouldn't hurt either.

auriculaire commented on 2021-05-08 13:46

I think that linux arch users who use this module have been running on linux-lts since the arrival of the latest 5.11.x and 5.12.x kernels with which for me this module has never been operational ..... I read the comments every day while waiting for the miracle solution. Have a good day and good luck everyone.

tioguda commented on 2021-05-08 11:55

This is the change I make to compile for Manjaro, I believe that there is no significant change that I have not reported here before.

graysky commented on 2021-05-08 10:56

I'm not sure what I can do with your reply. You're modifying the PKGBUILD I provide to build without dkms on a foreign distro and you're reporting that it works. You're not sharing the code you're using to do this so it's impossible to make a comparison back to help users of Arch build via dkms.

What if you uninstall your non-dkms tweaked package and try building with this unmodified. Does that build? If so do it give a functional module?

tioguda commented on 2021-05-08 10:53

Yes, they abandoned it, but I am using this package as a base to build one for Manjaro.

This driver is starting/working with the Manjaro (Gnome) 5.12 kernel and the Zen kernel (compiled locally).

As I mentioned before, I use this package as a base, since small changes are needed to compile the non-dkms module in Manjaro.


graysky commented on 2021-05-08 10:28

I am unfamiliar with manjaro but I thought they dropped this driver a while ago. Are you using the 5.12 kernel there where you report a functional driver? Is it this package you're using to build the kernel module?

tioguda commented on 2021-05-08 01:17

@graysky could you tell me a test to make sure everything is fine with the 5.12 kernel?

In Manjaro Gnome the system starts and I don't have the problems reported by @jayache80. In Plasma I can only start via startx on tty2, I haven't tested it with Xfce.


graysky commented on 2021-05-07 12:39

OK, if this doesn't give a functional module for the 5.12 series of kernels, we need to either 1) identify someone else's work to fix it (ie a patch from another distro or person), or 2) we need someone with expertise to fix it for us. I am not that someone nor do I have any hardware for testing.

nahno commented on 2021-05-07 03:59

I can confirm 2). Tested yesterday. My machine (xfce4) stills runs on Linux 5.11.7 without any issues though.