Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: undefined symbol: pciNumBuses (in 9.1 driver version)

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3

    Default Same problem with debian unstable

    I have a debian unstable / experimental installed.
    I get the same error messages in the xorg logs as asfalatus.
    There is also ABI check which fails with the dri module but the dri2 module seems to be loaded with no errors.

    Please let me know if I can help with testing some patches for this issue.
    Regards

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7

    Default do they have the dev resource?

    This error was affecting me with the 8.12 release, and now with Catalyst 9.1.

    This version builds fine against the current kernel, but is not ready for Xorg 1.6.


    From the Xorg log:
    X.Org X Server 1.5.99.3
    Release Date: (unreleased)
    X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0
    Current Operating System: Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.28.2 #1 SMP Fri Jan 30 03:09:22 GMT 2009 i686
    ...
    (II) LoadModule: "fglrx"
    (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers//fglrx_drv.so
    dlopen: /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers//fglrx_drv.so: undefined symbol: pciNumBuses
    (EE) Failed to load /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers//fglrx_drv.so
    (II) UnloadModule: "fglrx"
    (EE) Failed to load module "fglrx" (loader failed, 7)

    Yes, it's xorg 1.6 rc1, and the latest kernel. This doesn't seem to affect the various OEMs, except ATI/AMD -- It's a shame they're always lagging behind!

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,613

    Default

    ATI has to fix it. I don't know how to get rid of undefinded symbols, I can only get rid of Xorg ABI checks - there are 2 later which are not in that line shown you posted.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,434

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spinctrl View Post
    This doesn't seem to affect the various OEMs, except ATI/AMD -- It's a shame they're always lagging behind!
    Not exactly; the open source drivers track the very latest development (and are often used in the new development), while fglrx focuses on supporting released versions.
    Last edited by bridgman; 02-04-2009 at 09:41 AM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,613

    Default

    I don't think thats a valid choice, because oss drivers do not provide full accelleration - not even feature wise on supported chips. Did you ever see gl2benchmark running? I didn't...

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,434

    Default

    Agreed, but that is changing pretty quickly as the open source framework evolves.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3

    Default

    As I undestand things : ATI/AMD is pushing ahead and communicating a lot around the opensource drivers which is a really good thing. A lot of promising things are going to happen with the growth of the community and the developpers / testers / users.

    However, I'm pragmatic as Kano is. I have a radeon hd3470 graphic card, and the actual 2D and 3D support for this chip by the open source drivers (radeon / radeonhd drivers) is still very basic. No full 2D material acceleration and no 3D support yet (announced to be released in a stable version in 3 months or more)

    On the over side the commercial (closed source) driver (fglrx) keeps on evolving and providing more and more fonctionnalities (opengl 3.0 support, etc.). I'm sure a lot of people are involved to make the fglrx driver better.

    Consedering this, I think that ATI/AMD shouldn't forget their linux users and also provide support for the fglrx driver with the latest xorg versions till the open source fill the gap with the fglrx driver.

    My 2 cents...

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,434

    Default

    Once the open source drivers get up to GL2-ish level and decent performance, do you still see a use case for fglrx on bleeding edge/pre-release distros (other than testing fglrx on the pre-release distro, of course ) ? For the next year or so the cool stuff in each new distro release is probably going to need open source drivers to run, like KMS in F10.

    We thought it made more sense to put the resources into advancing open source driver support more quickly. Maybe that's not right ?
    Last edited by bridgman; 02-04-2009 at 08:49 PM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    We thought it made more sense to put the resources into advancing open source driver support more quickly. Maybe that's not right ?
    I think you're absolutely spot on to advance the open source drivers. I look around at GEM, Kernel Mode Setting and wonder what else is around the corner. New Fedora and Ubuntu releases will be sitting on top of these new features. Only the open source drivers will adapt fast enough to these radical new features. FGLRX can come along later once things settle down for those folks who need maximum speed and stability on Long-term support releases. Of course, I'll be happier once we see Framebuffer Object (FBO) support in the open source drivers.
    Last edited by Nexus6; 02-05-2009 at 05:00 PM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Hi

    Don't misunderstand me
    I really think open source drivers is the way to go and that you should continue to put maximum resources on these driver development.
    As I said in my previous message, when the open source driver will be more mature then there will be no need of the fglrx driver anymore.

    I would like to thank all the people who make the open source driver evolving.

    Now I thought that as the fglrx driver is more advanced it would take less time and effort to get xorg 1.6 support which seems to be wrong.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •