Using either fd7t1 disk or a recent rescue/http install cd, I only have the option for text/vnc install instead of graphical. What can I check to see what is broken?
ati x1400
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 13:40 -0600, Justin Conover wrote:
Using either fd7t1 disk or a recent rescue/http install cd, I only have the option for text/vnc install instead of graphical. What can I check to see what is broken?
You have a card that ATI actively refuses to allow open source developers to release code for. You should let them know how you feel about that.
Odd that it won't at least come up with vesa though. Can you run X with the vesa driver once it's installed?
- ajax
On 2/27/07, Adam Jackson ajackson@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 13:40 -0600, Justin Conover wrote:
Using either fd7t1 disk or a recent rescue/http install cd, I only have the option for text/vnc install instead of graphical. What can I check to see what is broken?
You have a card that ATI actively refuses to allow open source developers to release code for. You should let them know how you feel about that.
I have....
Odd that it won't at least come up with vesa though. Can you run X with
the vesa driver once it's installed?
Doesn't even let me use X -configure, refuses to create an xorg.conf, I've blow out rawhide on here now because of it, cause I was lacking sleep and got irritated ;)
I can re-install if you want to go through and figure out why. I know "we" shouldn't buy hardware with "cards" that aren't open source, but uh we do and like you said, it works with vesa in fc6 and I can promise when F7 comes out, I'm not the only one with a laptop and this card.
- ajax
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
Once upon a time, Adam Jackson ajackson@redhat.com said:
You have a card that ATI actively refuses to allow open source developers to release code for. You should let them know how you feel about that.
Can we get a list of cards (at least chips) that do and cards that don't work with the X.org radeon driver? The man page still says "2d only" for all R300 and above chips, and I know that at least some of them have 3d support (even if it is still considered beta, it is enabled).
I have an AMD system, so AFAIK I can't get an Intel card (aren't they all integrated?). My only choices then for 3d with non-proprietary drivers are ATI cards, right?
I opened a bugzilla about the man page recently:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227342
I would submit a patch, but reading through the code, I'm not sure I know exactly what is supported and what is not. It looks like all the R3xx chips should work (for at least some degree of "work"), while no R4xx chips are supported.
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 03:33:12PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
I have an AMD system, so AFAIK I can't get an Intel card (aren't they all integrated?). My only choices then for 3d with non-proprietary drivers are ATI cards, right?
Its worse than that
Nvidia provide open 2D but not 3D so you get basic 2D work Older Radeon is supported
newer (roughly "post Xbox contract") Radeon is not supported and AMD are actively blocking even 2D support.
R3xx chips should work (for at least some degree of "work"), while no R4xx chips are supported.
Correct. AMD are blocking release of code for this. Please make sure AMD understand you don't like it. Please understand that for many kernel developers this is an "Intel platform bugs get automatic priority" issue.
Alan
On 2/27/07, Alan Cox alan@redhat.com wrote:
Correct. AMD are blocking release of code for this. Please make sure AMD understand you don't like it. Please understand that for many kernel developers this is an "Intel platform bugs get automatic priority" issue.
Is there a link to some info about blocking the release of the opensource driver? I couldn't find it via google.
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 05:18:01PM -0500, James Hubbard wrote:
On 2/27/07, Alan Cox alan@redhat.com wrote:
Correct. AMD are blocking release of code for this. Please make sure AMD understand you don't like it. Please understand that for many kernel developers this is an "Intel platform bugs get automatic priority" issue.
Is there a link to some info about blocking the release of the opensource driver? I couldn't find it via google.
http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2006/view_abstract.php?content_key=189 http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2006/linuxsymposium_procv1.pdf http://www.skynet.ie/~airlied/talks/ols06/ols2006.od5xx + future
From the R500 slide
Brand new 2D engine
Open source driver code with ATI for 3 months for review
2D support is approx 600 lines of code
.. 3 months was last OLS
Alan
Alan Cox wrote:
R3xx chips should work (for at least some degree of "work"), while no R4xx chips are supported.
Correct. AMD are blocking release of code for this. Please make sure AMD understand you don't like it. Please understand that for many kernel developers this is an "Intel platform bugs get automatic priority" issue.
AMD + ATI = DAAMIT
(according to theinquirer)
How appropriate.
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 15:33 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Adam Jackson ajackson@redhat.com said:
You have a card that ATI actively refuses to allow open source developers to release code for. You should let them know how you feel about that.
Can we get a list of cards (at least chips) that do and cards that don't work with the X.org radeon driver? The man page still says "2d only" for all R300 and above chips, and I know that at least some of them have 3d support (even if it is still considered beta, it is enabled).
The generations, roughly
R100: 7000 - 7500 R200: 8500 - 9250 R300: 9500 - X300 R400: any other X+3digits R500: X+4digits (sometimes called X1k) R600: no marketing name yet, but probably will be X2k
There is no 2D support for any R500 chip. Roughly this means any Radeon named X + four digits, _except_ for the recently-announced X1050 which is a rebadged X300 (so that X1k could mean "Vista compatible" while also having a cheap low-end card available, yay marketing). It also means several FireGL V-series cards, but there's no easy way to tell _which_ ones just by looking at the numbers. And it also means several Mobility chips, but again, no consistent naming (although if you see M50-something or higher it's likely to be R500-based).
Dear ATI: Your marketing names could suck-start a Harley.
There is 3D support for basically all other Radeon chips, except for two. The RN50 is more or less a re-binned RV100 with no QA done to the 3D engine, so while it's there it rarely works. These usually say ES1000 on the card and come in server boxes, so you don't need to worry about them. The other unsupported chipset is the "XPRESS 200" and variants, which are otherwise R400-series laptop chips, but include some wacky PCIE memory controller that no one's figured out yet (and that obviously ATI aren't talking about). The xpress could probably be made to work with a little poking; the RN50 is just junk.
The R500 is virtually identical, as far as we're concerned, with the R400. The only difference is the output setup and that the register banks have moved around. It's that setup bit that's the problem.
I have an AMD system, so AFAIK I can't get an Intel card (aren't they all integrated?). My only choices then for 3d with non-proprietary drivers are ATI cards, right?
If you insist on getting cards and post-DX7-level 3D, yes. Motherboards are reasonably cheap. There's still the Matrox G-series cards but they're DX7-ish.
I opened a bugzilla about the man page recently:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227342
I would submit a patch, but reading through the code, I'm not sure I know exactly what is supported and what is not. It looks like all the R3xx chips should work (for at least some degree of "work"), while no R4xx chips are supported.
Nah, R400 works, I've tested it on an X800. The r300 DRI driver covers both the R300 and R400 generations, and will probably cover R500 once we figure it out. R300 was the point where they ditched the fixed geometry pipeline internally and did everything in terms of shaders, and there's nothing really fundamentally different since. We think R500 added multitasking but that's about it.
The r300 3d driver could use some love though, it's still got some obvious brain-damage. Fun way to get involved, if anyone's looking for a challenge.
- ajax
Once upon a time, Adam Jackson ajackson@redhat.com said:
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 15:33 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
I have an AMD system, so AFAIK I can't get an Intel card (aren't they all integrated?). My only choices then for 3d with non-proprietary drivers are ATI cards, right?
If you insist on getting cards and post-DX7-level 3D, yes. Motherboards are reasonably cheap. There's still the Matrox G-series cards but they're DX7-ish.
Well, it would be mboard+CPU+RAM, which isn't quite as cheap.
Nah, R400 works, I've tested it on an X800. The r300 DRI driver covers both the R300 and R400 generations, and will probably cover R500 once we figure it out.
Oops, my bad. I was poking through the code and saw a comment that said "R420 and RV410 family not supported yet" in radeon_driver.c. I see that it is in RADEONInitDispBandwidth(), which doesn't appear to be a critical thing.
-
Adam Jackson -
Alan Cox -
Chris Adams -
Chuck Ebbert -
James Hubbard -
Justin Conover