20 Oct 2024 |
Atemu | That wouldn't allow adding arbitrary drvs either | 20:43:23 |
K900 | Well they'd have to be nvidia-shaped | 20:43:36 |
Atemu | Of course | 20:43:43 |
K900 | But adding more than one nvidia-shaped thing is wrong anyway | 20:43:46 |
K900 | I think | 20:43:48 |
Atemu | But you could build your own nvidia-shaped drv and pass it | 20:43:52 |
K900 | Well you still can with this design | 20:44:02 |
Atemu | Some ancient driver or newer beta or some shit | 20:44:07 |
K900 | Except the fact that you don't have a kernel to build against | 20:44:09 |
K900 | Which is I guess the root problem | 20:44:16 |
Atemu | Problem is that it wouldn't be in pkgs | 20:44:19 |
K900 | It would be pkgs.nvidia_whatever.override ... | 20:44:33 |
Atemu | Oh wait you could just ignore the pkgs argument... | 20:44:54 |
K900 | Or even pkgs.callPackage ./completely-custom-nvidia-shaped-thing.nix | 20:45:00 |
Atemu | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
hardware.graphics.extraPackages = pkgs: if pkgs.stdenv.is64bit then [ config.hardware.nvidia.package ] else [ config.hardware.nvidia.package.lib32 ] Like you did here | 20:45:05 |
K900 | Actually | 20:45:23 |
Atemu | Wait we could just make that function an attr of the driver | 20:45:34 |
K900 | Does Nvidia even support multiarch | 20:45:39 |
K900 | On non-x86 | 20:45:47 |
K900 | Like can you have armv7 libs on aarch64 kernel | 20:46:01 |
Atemu | Do they even have armv7 drivers anymore? | 20:46:20 |
Atemu | Even kepler arm chips are aarch64 | 20:46:36 |
Atemu | Err maxwell | 20:46:42 |
K900 | Presumably they must for legacy apps? | 20:46:45 |
K900 | idk | 20:46:49 |
Atemu | Hm good point | 20:46:58 |
K900 | See that's the problem I don't know shit about nvidia | 20:47:00 |
K900 | And I also don't know anyone who wants to | 20:47:08 |
Atemu | I don't know whether there are any legacy apps to speak of since nvidia on arm is a relatively recent thing | 20:47:16 |
Atemu | Like, about as recent as wide-spread aarch64 use | 20:47:47 |