Arch Linux User Repository

For testing users, contributors: check out https://github.com/archlinux-jerry/nvidia-340xx
Warning: force push may happen to match the aur tree

OK, I honestly forgot that I included an example config file. Since I don't have the hardware for testing, and since I still don't have a sense from users that it is a requirement, I will leave it in the post_install and depend on the user's ability to read pacman's output and manually copy the example over.

@graysky I noted the advice that was given after installing the module on kernel 5.11: "-> You must tell Xorg to use the nvidia driver with kernels >=5.11.0. -> Minimal xorg config example: /usr/share/nvidia-340xx/20-nvidia.conf -> To place in /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/ " In fact, as @jayache80 pointed out, it is in /etc/X11/xorg.conf (and not in xorg.conf.d/) that the "Files" section must be filled in. However, I am not able to conclude whether 20-nvidia.conf is mandatory or not. I don't remember to create it myself... Thanks to you. Sincerely.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Not specifically.

I have not been following this closely. Is 20-nvidia.conf a requirement for all setups of this driver with 5.12? Should the package provide an equivalent?

@jayache80 Thank you so much! ...I just added to my xorg.conf the two lines you mention, and archlinux with the latest kernel (uname -mr = 5.12.2-arch1 x86_64) boots well on lightdm and gdm for xfce, gnome and kde. Only sddm doesn't want to show up... Sincerely

I'm an idiot. The order of ModulePath entries was somehow incorrect in my xorg.conf:

As in the provided 20-nvidia.conf, and is nicely called out to the user upon installing this driver, it absolutely needs to be:

Section "Files"
  ModulePath   "/usr/lib64/nvidia/xorg"
  ModulePath   "/usr/lib64/xorg/modules"
EndSection

However, somehow I had it reversed. The following is WRONG:

Section "Files"
  ModulePath   "/usr/lib64/xorg/modules"
  ModulePath   "/usr/lib64/nvidia/xorg"
EndSection

Sorry for all the noise.

The following can be ignored as it was totally a red herring. DRM is just different now and you can expect that it will be initialized differently and you won't see the same system log output in 5.11+ as 5.10.

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_init but only #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

#define NV_DRM_AVAILABLE

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?

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.

https://forum.mxlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=53653

https://forum.mxlinux.org/viewtopic.php?f=108&t=53603&start=10

https://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2423870

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.

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.

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?