The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

dcc24 · 2010-06-23 08:13:25

Hmm, ok I will try to make xrandr work.

I really don't know if xorg-server can dynamically modify the size of the framebuffer without restart...

Well, the nVidia binary doesn't need an x server restart when an external monitor is connected, so I guess it can do that

Last edited by dcc24 (2010-06-23 08:14:00)

snack · 2010-06-23 08:16:28

dcc24 wrote:

Well, the nVidia binary doesn't need an x server restart, so I guess it can do that

I never tried a dual monitor with nvidia cards... To be honest, I don't know well this topic. I only found a way to make dual monitor work, but it would be interesting if someone could explain here the best way to setup dual monitor.

gtklocker · 2010-06-23 17:32:53

What should I do to have powersaving with catalyst from Vi0L0's repo?

snack · 2010-06-23 21:11:23

gtklocker wrote:

What should I do to have powersaving with catalyst from Vi0L0's repo?

Powersaving should be enabled by default. At least, I didn't do anything to enable it and it actually works (to see what happens when it doesn't work try installing the radeonhd driver and see the difference...).

Eit · 2010-06-24 11:33:06

Today I've updated my system after some days and I'm having problems with my catalyst after the xorg update too, of course xorg doesn't start but I've noticed that it can't find and load the fglrx module (I've installed catalyst using yaourt)

Vi0L0 · 2010-06-24 13:53:03

@Eit: i guess that you did update while working on old kernel (2.6.33) so fglrx module was builded for that old kernel, and now its not working with fresh 2.6.34 kernel. Just build catalyst package again.
BTW if you are using stock kernel (from core repo) maybe its good to use catalyst repo - you will save time for downloading (catalyst package from repo is only ~16MB fat) and building that way.

jck · 2010-06-24 16:02:51

snack wrote:

dcc24 wrote:
Well, the nVidia binary doesn't need an x server restart, so I guess it can do that
I never tried a dual monitor with nvidia cards... To be honest, I don't know well this topic. I only found a way to make dual monitor work, but it would be interesting if someone could explain here the best way to setup dual monitor.

snack, try arandr. its really simple...

vIiRuS · 2010-06-24 19:10:11

Hi

I have got a pretty big problem with my Xserver and fglrx.
Today I tried to update my Arch and installed the Kernel 2.6.34 and xorg-server 1.8.1.
I installed the catalyst driver out of this repository: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ATI … positories
and I also got the xorg-server from there (had to download the package and install it with "pacman -U ...". But when I type in "startx" it tries to start X but then I get dropped back to the terminal and it says it had a segmentation fault.

Did I somehow misunderstand it and fglrx doesn't work at all with the xorg-server 1.8? Or did I make some kind of mistake?
Would be awesome if somebody could help me as I currently have to work with the radeonhd driver and can't get xrandr to use my two screens correctly...

timong · 2010-06-24 19:28:06

vIiRuS wrote:

Hi
I have got a pretty big problem with my Xserver and fglrx.
Today I tried to update my Arch and installed the Kernel 2.6.34 and xorg-server 1.8.1.
I installed the catalyst driver out of this repository: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ATI … positories
and I also got the xorg-server from there (had to download the package and install it with "pacman -U ...". But when I type in "startx" it tries to start X but then I get dropped back to the terminal and it says it had a segmentation fault.
Did I somehow misunderstand it and fglrx doesn't work at all with the xorg-server 1.8? Or did I make some kind of mistake?
Would be awesome if somebody could help me as I currently have to work with the radeonhd driver and can't get xrandr to use my two screens correctly...

I suppose you dont use xorg-18 repo of vi0l0, you need a fake-version patched build of that to fake 1.7 for fglrx.

vIiRuS · 2010-06-24 19:36:16

timong wrote:

I suppose you dont use xorg-18 repo of vi0l0, you need a fake-version patched build of that to fake 1.7 for fglrx.

As I don't think that this is his repo: http://catalyst.apocalypsus.net/repo/catalyst/x86_64/
No I'm not using it... where can I find it?

timong · 2010-06-24 19:51:29

vIiRuS wrote:

timong wrote:
I suppose you dont use xorg-18 repo of vi0l0, you need a fake-version patched build of that to fake 1.7 for fglrx.
As I don't think that this is his repo: http://catalyst.apocalypsus.net/repo/catalyst/x86_64/
No I'm not using it... where can I find it?

Interestingly its been removed from the wiki entry http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ATI … positories here. I used xorg-18 repo for my config...vi0l0 is it moved to official testing or what?! or is 10.6 supporting xserver 1.8?

anyway i use this repo:

[catalyst-xorg18]
Server = http://catalyst.apocalypsus.net/repo/catalyst-xorg18/x86_64

Last edited by timong (2010-06-24 19:52:02)

vIiRuS · 2010-06-24 20:01:45

hm jeah... thats the one I got too...
The strange thing also is that I can't install the xorg-server package directly. when I try to install it he just takes the one from "extra" (and yes the catalyst repo is above the other repos in the pacman.conf)

Is it possible that pacman had problems because I installed the xorg-server package with "pacman -U" and not directly from the server?

ChemBro · 2010-06-24 20:53:15

vIiRuS wrote:

hm jeah... thats the one I got too...
The strange thing also is that I can't install the xorg-server package directly. when I try to install it he just takes the one from "extra" (and yes the catalyst repo is above the other repos in the pacman.conf)
Is it possible that pacman had problems because I installed the xorg-server package with "pacman -U" and not directly from the server?

1) The catalyst-repo should be above the extra-repo.

2) You need to install xorg-server first and then catalyst. Did you do that?

Cdh · 2010-06-24 21:24:02

You didn't read the last posts...

Vi0L0 wrote:

10.6 actually can work with xorg-server package from extra! I havent seen any post about that, also ATi didnt announce xserver 1.8 support. But its working! So removing xorg-server package from catalyst repo :-)

Some people with the segfault said that creating a new configuration with aticonfig --initial --force works but I didn't test it because it always worked for me. Now with xorg-server from extra.

Vi0L0 · 2010-06-25 00:30:35

Also:

timong wrote:

anyway i use this repo:

[catalyst-xorg18]
Server = http://catalyst.apocalypsus.net/repo/catalyst-xorg18/x86_64

catalyst-xorg18 repo doesn't exist anymore since it became main catalyst repo (that was few days ago, and i also wrote about that).

vIiRuS · 2010-06-25 05:07:50

ChemBro wrote:

vIiRuS wrote:
hm jeah... thats the one I got too...
The strange thing also is that I can't install the xorg-server package directly. when I try to install it he just takes the one from "extra" (and yes the catalyst repo is above the other repos in the pacman.conf)
Is it possible that pacman had problems because I installed the xorg-server package with "pacman -U" and not directly from the server?
1) The catalyst-repo should be above the extra-repo.
2) You need to install xorg-server first and then catalyst. Did you do that?

The Catalyst repo is above every repo....

I now also tried to uninstall the xorg-server an then reinstall them in the correct order... but that didn't help either.

Cdh wrote:

Some people with the segfault said that creating a new configuration with aticonfig --initial --force works but I didn't test it because it always worked for me. Now with xorg-server from extra.

I tried to create a xorg.conf with that command when there wasn't any... I can't really believe that it would behave different if I run it several times...

keks · 2010-06-25 09:15:33

Had also a segmentation fault with xserver 1.8 from extra and catalyst 10.6.
As someone stated in the aur comments, adding

BusID "PCI:1:0:0"

to the device section did it for me.
/e: in the xorg.conf of course…

Last edited by keks (2010-06-25 09:17:29)

rulex · 2010-06-25 10:03:50

ok this is annoying. it seems i cant set a virtual resolution.

$ xrandr 
Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1680 x 1050, maximum 1920 x 1920
DFP1 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
DFP2 connected 1680x1050+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 160mm x 90mm
   1920x1080      60.0 +   50.0     59.9     30.0     25.0     30.0     25.0     24.0     30.0     30.0     24.0 

....

DFP3 connected 1680x1050+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 433mm x 271mm
   1680x1050      60.0*+
...

$ xrandr --output DFP2 --auto --right-of DFP3
xrandr: screen cannot be larger than 1920x1920 (desired size 3600x1080)

and when i uncomment the virtual line in xorg.conf

Section "Screen"
    Identifier "aticonfig-Screen[0]-0"
    Device     "aticonfig-Device[0]-0"
    Monitor    "aticonfig-Monitor[0]-0"
    DefaultDepth     24
    SubSection "Display"
        Viewport   0 0
        Depth     24
        #Virtual 3600 1080
    EndSubSection
EndSection

but now when in X and i run xrandr the max resolution for both my displays are 1680x1050 and it says screen cannot be larger than 1680x1680.
wierd stuff i tell you. I've had this working perfectly before.

vIiRuS · 2010-06-25 12:13:29

keks wrote:

Had also a segmentation fault with xserver 1.8 from extra and catalyst 10.6.
As someone stated in the aur comments, adding
BusID "PCI:1:0:0"
to the device section did it for me.
/e: in the xorg.conf of course…

thats already in my xorg.conf per default.

This is what my xorg.conf looks like when I run "aticonfig --initial=dual-head --screen-layout=left --force"

Section "ServerLayout"
    Identifier     "aticonfig Layout"
    Screen      0  "aticonfig-Screen[0]-0" 0 0
    Screen         "aticonfig-Screen[0]-1" LeftOf "aticonfig-Screen[0]-0"
EndSection

Section "Files"
EndSection

Section "Module"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
    Identifier   "aticonfig-Monitor[0]-0"
    Option        "VendorName" "ATI Proprietary Driver"
    Option        "ModelName" "Generic Autodetecting Monitor"
    Option        "DPMS" "true"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"
    Identifier   "aticonfig-Monitor[0]-1"
    Option        "VendorName" "ATI Proprietary Driver"
    Option        "ModelName" "Generic Autodetecting Monitor"
    Option        "DPMS" "true"
EndSection

Section "Device"
    Identifier  "aticonfig-Device[0]-0"
    Driver      "fglrx"
    BusID       "PCI:6:0:0"
EndSection

Section "Device"
    Identifier  "aticonfig-Device[0]-1"
    Driver      "fglrx"
    BusID       "PCI:6:0:0"
    Screen      1
EndSection

Section "Screen"
    Identifier "aticonfig-Screen[0]-0"
    Device     "aticonfig-Device[0]-0"
    Monitor    "aticonfig-Monitor[0]-0"
    DefaultDepth     24
    SubSection "Display"
        Viewport   0 0
        Depth     24
    EndSubSection
EndSection

Section "Screen"
    Identifier "aticonfig-Screen[0]-1"
    Device     "aticonfig-Device[0]-1"
    Monitor    "aticonfig-Monitor[0]-1"
    DefaultDepth     24
    SubSection "Display"
        Viewport   0 0
        Depth     24
    EndSubSection
EndSection

Kariddi · 2010-06-25 13:30:05

I want to share a problem with you guys.

First of all I'm running KDE on a system with a 5850 video card and the latest 10.6 drivers from the catalyst repository.

I don't know why, but if I run a fullscreen flash video in a 64 bit browser the video is veeeeery laggy and it is like is going to lockup the entire system . I have to press esc repeatedly until the the player exits fullscreen (this can take a minute). It doesn't matter if the flash plugin is 64bit or 32bit with nspluginwrapper, the video is very laggy in fullscreen. This also happens with 32 bit browsers installed in a multilib environment (using libraries from lib32 group in the community repository or binaries from bin32)

The strange thing is that if I run my browser from an arch32 system installed on my arch64 as described by these instruction: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ins … _in_Arch64 everything is ok. The video is perfecly smooth.

I tried different kinds of browsers (firefox, chrome and opera) and all exhibit the same problem that disappears when run in my arch32 environment.

Someone have a clue about this issue?

okraits · 2010-06-25 13:37:06

Do you have conky running?

Kariddi · 2010-06-25 13:42:30

If you mean the system monitor then no, I haven't

Vi0L0 · 2010-06-25 13:56:28

@vIiRuS: was catalyst-10.5/xserver-1.7 working for you? You did all this nomodeset and fglrx stuff i guess. So can you post your /var/log/Xorg.0.log or /var/log/Xorg.1.log and dmesg output (please put dmesg at some pastebin server)?

Edit: also try to remove /etc/ati/amdpcsdb

Last edited by Vi0L0 (2010-06-25 14:03:08)

Vi0L0 · 2010-06-25 14:00:09

@Kariddi: maybe its some 2D acceleration issue... did you try to use old xaa rendering? (see bottom of catalyst wiki how to enable it)

Kariddi · 2010-06-25 14:00:40

Another strange thing that I just noticed is that if the fullscreen flash window is kept on the background (by alt-tabbing on another window while the video is played. This keeps the video fullscreen, but another window is superposed) then the video is played full speed even on 64bit browsers ... very strange. As the fullscreen video window becomes the foreground window the video the system gets choppy again.

Arch Linux

#2026 2010-06-23 08:13:25

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2027 2010-06-23 08:16:28

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2028 2010-06-23 17:32:53

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2029 2010-06-23 21:11:23

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2030 2010-06-24 11:33:06

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2031 2010-06-24 13:53:03

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2032 2010-06-24 16:02:51

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2033 2010-06-24 19:10:11

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2034 2010-06-24 19:28:06

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2035 2010-06-24 19:36:16

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2036 2010-06-24 19:51:29

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2037 2010-06-24 20:01:45

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2038 2010-06-24 20:53:15

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2039 2010-06-24 21:24:02

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2040 2010-06-25 00:30:35

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2041 2010-06-25 05:07:50

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2042 2010-06-25 09:15:33

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2043 2010-06-25 10:03:50

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2044 2010-06-25 12:13:29

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2045 2010-06-25 13:30:05

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2046 2010-06-25 13:37:06

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2047 2010-06-25 13:42:30

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2048 2010-06-25 13:56:28

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2049 2010-06-25 14:00:09

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

#2050 2010-06-25 14:00:40

Re: The AMD/ATI Bar & Grill

Board footer