Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: ATI 8.28.8 FC6 2.6.20 driver install

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    15

    Default ATI 8.28.8 FC6 2.6.20 driver install

    Hi Everyone
    I have tried not to make this post. I have a Dell C600 (well actually 12 of them) one with FC6 2.6.20-1.2952.fc6 as an OS and ATI Technologies Inc Rage Mobility M3 AGP 2x (rev 02) for video hardware on all 12. I would like to use 2.6.20 on all (FC5 is just a little dated). Firefox and Google earth are just to slow with the open drivers. As far as I can see that leaves 8.28.8.

    I read all the posts and installed all the packages. I make all the simbolic links and tried both the direct package install and the –buildpkg option. But I must have forgotten something. I just can't find it.

    The output from the /use/share/fglrx/fglrx-install.log

    [root@jimalap fglrx]# more fglrx-install.log
    [Message] Kernel Module : Trying to install a precompiled kernel module.
    [Message] Kernel Module : Precompiled kernel module version mismatched.
    [Message] Kernel Module : Found kernel module build environment, generating kernel module now.
    ATI module generator V 2.0
    ==========================
    initializing...
    cleaning...
    patching 'highmem.h'...
    assuming new VMA API since we do have kernel 2.6.x...
    Assuming default VMAP API
    doing Makefile based build for kernel 2.6.x and higher
    make -C /lib/modules/2.6.20-1.2952.fc6/build SUBDIRS=/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x modules
    make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/kernels/2.6.20-1.2952.fc6-i686'
    CC [M] /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.o
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:180: error: expected declaration specifiers or ‘...’ before ‘mlock’
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:180: error: expected declaration specifiers or ‘...’ before ‘addr’
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:180: error: expected declaration specifiers or ‘...’ before ‘len’
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:182: warning: return type defaults to ‘int’
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c: In function ‘_syscall2’:
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:182: error: expected declaration specifiers before ‘_syscall2’
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:215: error: parameter ‘__ke_debuglevel’ is initialized
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:216: error: parameter ‘__ke_moduleflags’ is initialized
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:219: error: storage class specified for parameter ‘__mod_author219’
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:219: error: parameter ‘__mod_author219’ is initialized
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:219: warning: ‘__used__’ attribute ignored
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:219: error: section attribute not allowed for ‘__mod_author219’
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:220: error: storage class specified for parameter ‘__mod_...

    And The End Of The Install Log After Many Err And Warning Messages

    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:180: error: parameter name omitted
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:180: error: parameter name omitted
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:180: error: parameter name omitted
    /lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.c:4049: error: expected ‘{’ at end of input
    make[2]: *** [/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x/firegl_public.o] Error 1
    make[1]: *** [_module_/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod/2.6.x] Error 2
    make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/kernels/2.6.20-1.2952.fc6-i686'
    make: *** [kmod_build] Error 2
    build failed with return value 2
    [Error] Kernel Module : Failed to compile kernel module - please consult readme.

    It looks like firegl_public.o is missing something. I am at the end of what my meager coding abilities allow. If someone could point me in the right direction. I would much applicate it.

    Thanks

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    .ro/.ca
    Posts
    232

    Default

    fglrx 8.28.8 is ancient and is not supposed to work with 2.6.20.

    Here's a patch: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/at...l-2.6.20.patch
    I didn't test it though.

    fglrx will do you no good with "rage mobility m3" (it's ancient!). That chipset is not supported by fglrx, but r128 should work with it

    Also,
    I read all the posts and installed all the packages
    no idea what you read. A little search shows http://www.phoronix.net/forums/showthread.php?t=342
    Last edited by Xipeos; 06-16-2007 at 03:54 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xipeos View Post
    fglrx 8.28.8 is ancient and is not supposed to work with 2.6.20.

    Here's a patch: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/at...l-2.6.20.patch
    I didn't test it though.

    fglrx will do you no good with "rage mobility m3" (it's ancient!). That chipset is not supported by fglrx, but r128 should work with it

    Also,

    no idea what you read. A little search shows http://www.phoronix.net/forums/showthread.php?t=342
    We are running FC5 with fglrx and it work great for what we want. r128 is to slow. So you will know next time:

    http://www.fedoraforum.org/forum/sho...d.php?t=144681

    Thanks for trying.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    .ro/.ca
    Posts
    232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldMarine View Post
    We are running FC5 with fglrx and it work great for what we want. r128 is to slow. So you will know next time:

    http://www.fedoraforum.org/forum/sho...d.php?t=144681

    Thanks for trying.
    You obviously missed the part on how fglrx doesn't work with rage 128. It never did (well...at least as far back as the rss feed goes 8.18.8).

    And how does it work great when you complained in the previous post that it doesn't even compile?! fglrx 8.28 was released ~7 months before linux 2.6.20 so there's no way you can make it work without modifying it (like using the patch I linked to).

    r128 is to slow
    Rage 128 first appeared in 1998, how can you expect any decent performance for modern-day programs?! Try lowering those settings or beowulf all those ancient Dells.

    Right...


    LATER EDIT: hey...what do you know? this has been "discussed" before. If you don't believe me then maybe you'll believe Michael
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael
    The Livna / official fglrx drivers will not work with the ATI Rage Mobility M3. Your only choice is to use the open-source Xorg drivers.
    from here

    Turns out there was a fglrx version that worked with rage though. And that guy was a bit more realist than you are
    Telling me not to expect too much from a Rage 128 is um... how shall I say... pointless.
    Amazing what a bit of search reveals
    Last edited by Xipeos; 06-16-2007 at 08:55 PM. Reason: Update

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    15

    Default I realize you are confused Xipeos. I will try to explain.

    I realize you are confused Xipeos. I will try to explain.

    I work in the IT dept. for a SMB. We have 12 Dell 600 laptops we bought in late 2002 or early 2003. The boxes came with ATI graphic cards. ATI at the time was making noises like they would support Linux. That is one of the reasons that we bought them. They(ATI) were putting together a program to give the Linux driver coders the specifications for their cards. That the coders need for the open source drivers. We were running RH 7.1 WS and 9.0 EP at the time I think. I remember downloading drivers for the video but I just can't think what they were. I know we used Xfree86 ver 4 something because of the M3 ATI video cards in the laptops. Anyway we put 9.0 on the first two laptops and used NIS and NFS for connective to the Suns in the engineering dept. and the AS-400 in accounting. We were at the time starting to change the entire company over to Linux for internal use. XP at the time had not been released very long and there were some real problems. This was pre SP1 or maybe a little after. What can I say Star Office was really cheap $ 75.00 per seat when compared to $ 400.00 for MS Office 2000 at the time. Well back to the point. We soon upgraded to FC3 and a 2.4 something kernel and then to FC4 after the 2.6 kernel was released. We were behind the normal Fedora upgrade cycle but we liked that. That was the first time I remember the fglrx drivers. I think they were called fglix maybe. I remember that we tried the ATI drivers but the DRI drivers that came with FC4 2.6.11 were faster. It was mid 2005 I think. If you want to know more you can Google it. When FC5 was released we started taking notice. Red Hat had split and taken RHN with it. Yum, Open Office 2.0 and the ATI driver looked awful good. It was the GL 3D acceleration in the the driver that really made the difference. We tried the ATI driver on the Rage 128 M3 and it had some problems but it made Netscape's browsers a real pleasure. That was a 2.6.11 kernel. When everyone was back after the new year (1/2006) we downloaded FC5 2.6.15 kernel and could not install the ATI drivers because we had to wait. Some problem Red Hat had with external drivers that were not open source. In March we got the 2.6.16 kernel and ATI 8.23.7. Big difference we are running 8.27 now and they beat the open source driver enough that Google Earth is very usable for the sales dept. salesmen on the old laptops.

    What happen. Last year ATI dropped support for anything that was older than about 2 years in their driver. So 8.28.8 is the last ATI driver with support for the Rage 128 M3 in the Dell Dimensions and the s video port will not work on that rev. That is why we went with the 2.6.20 kernel and the 2.28.8 driver. We wanted to get FC6 but not lose the ATI driver acceleration for the old M3s.

    I hope this will clear up things for you. Now does anyone know what I did wrong with the 2.28.8 build? After all the laptops are only 4 years old and we don't use them for “ beowulf “.

    Edit:A little after thought. Anyone you have every heard say they wish Linux could be accepted by the business world. Well this is what it looks like. Doing a job. Not maybe state of the art but getting the job done. The laptops are not game machines. The difference in performance between Firefox using the open source drivers and the ATI drivers will not mean much game wise. Just use it everyday for Open Office or Firefox then you'll see the big difference.
    Last edited by OldMarine; 06-17-2007 at 11:42 AM. Reason: bad ver. # poor grammer, a passing thought

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    .ro/.ca
    Posts
    232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldMarine View Post
    I work in the IT dept. for a SMB. We have 12 Dell 600 laptops we bought in late 2002 or early 2003. The boxes came with ATI graphic cards. ATI at the time was making noises like they would support Linux. That is one of the reasons that we bought them. They(ATI) were putting together a program to give the Linux driver coders the specifications for their cards. That the coders need for the open source drivers. We were running RH 7.1 WS and 9.0 EP at the time I think. I remember downloading drivers for the video but I just can't think what they were. I know we used Xfree86 ver 4 something because of the M3 ATI video cards in the laptops. Anyway we put 9.0 on the first two laptops and used NIS and NFS for connective to the Suns in the engineering dept. and the AS-400 in accounting. We were at the time starting to change the entire company over to Linux for internal use. XP at the time had not been released very long and there were some real problems. This was pre SP1 or maybe a little after. What can I say Star Office was really cheap $ 75.00 per seat when compared to $ 400.00 for MS Office 2000 at the time. Well back to the point. We soon upgraded to FC3 and a 2.4 something kernel and then to FC4 after the 2.6 kernel was released. We were behind the normal Fedora upgrade cycle but we liked that. That was the first time I remember the fglrx drivers. I think they were called fglix maybe. I remember that we tried the ATI drivers but the DRI drivers that came with FC4 2.6.11 were faster. It was mid 2005 I think. If you want to know more you can Google it. When FC5 was released we started taking notice. Red Hat had split and taken RHN with it. Yum, Open Office 2.0 and the ATI driver looked awful good. It was the GL 3D acceleration in the the driver that really made the difference. We tried the ATI driver on the Rage 128 M3 and it had some problems but it made Netscape's browsers a real pleasure. That was a 2.6.11 kernel. When everyone was back after the new year (1/2006) we downloaded FC5 2.6.15 kernel and could not install the ATI drivers because we had to wait. Some problem Red Hat had with external drivers that were not open source. In March we got the 2.6.16 kernel and ATI 8.23.7. Big difference we are running 8.27 now and they beat the open source driver enough that Google Earth is very usable for the sales dept. salesmen on the old laptops.
    How interesting...

    What happen. Last year ATI dropped support for anything that was older than about 2 years in their driver. So 8.28.8 is the last ATI driver with support for the Rage 128 M3
    Partially false. 8.28.8 was the last to support newer r200. Your rage 128 is r100 and at least 3 years older that those 9000s (again, rage 128 came out at the end of 1998)

    Like I said, as far as the RSS feed goes (8.18.8 - that is ~november 2005) fglrx doesn't support rage 128.

    Now does anyone know what I did wrong with the 2.28.8 build?
    I told you you...old marine!! That driver is too old for the kernel that you have. Use the patch that I linked to http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/at...l-2.6.20.patch

    Calm your rage

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Something is wrong I have laptops with FC5 and a video driver from livna repo named kmod-fglrx. That much I know. The laptops are at work. Let's put this off till tomorrow so I am not working from memory for the numbers. I really need to get this solved. Thanks till tomorrow.


    Edit: P.S. I am mad at ATI. Please don't think it's you. I know you are just trying to help.
    Last edited by OldMarine; 06-17-2007 at 02:09 PM. Reason: Little PS

  8. #8

    Default

    I concur with Xipeos, and I seriously doubt ATI fglrx 8.28.8 has the support for Rage128 series graphic cards.

    As far as I know, if I am going to configure a Rage128, I would not be using driver from ATI. I would use the "r128" driver from Xorg. For DRI, I would download the latest drm from http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/Download

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lenrek View Post
    I concur with Xipeos, and I seriously doubt ATI fglrx 8.28.8 has the support for Rage128 series graphic cards.

    As far as I know, if I am going to configure a Rage128, I would not be using driver from ATI. I would use the "r128" driver from Xorg. For DRI, I would download the latest drm from http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/Download
    8.28.8 does NOT support the Rage128.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    15

    Default

    I know what is going on now. We have:

    2 Dell C600 with Rage 128 M3 video The First We bought
    2 Dell C610 with M6P video The Next order
    8 Dell C610s with M9+ video. The Last 4 orders

    No wonder things are confused. We bought these over a year or a year and a half. The 610 M9s have kmod-fglrx-8.28.8-1.2.6.17_2174_FC5 for the driver. The 2 C600s with the M3 and the 2 C610s with M6Ps have the ATI open source r128 driver. I know I knew that. Some how I made a mistake and thought they all were M3 with the ATI 8.28.8 driver. Next time maybe I'll listen. I have been keeper of this zoo to long.

    Well that solves part of the problem. The M3s and M6Ps will run the same R128 driver when we upgrade to FC6. Unless one of you boys have another idea. The C610s with the ATI 9200s I need to install the r128 driver on one and see if there is that much difference between fglrx and R128. No need to mess with 8.28.8 unless necessary.

    Xipeos I thought they were all a like. But as the top of the Dell Dimenstion line changed they sold us a better box. I should have known.
    Thanks Boys. Maybe I can help you all next time.

Posting Permissions

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