Page 23 of 111 FirstFirst ... 1321222324253373 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 1109

Thread: "Ask ATI" dev thread

  1. #221
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paul View Post
    According to this thread http://hoegsberg.blogspot.com/ Fedora 9 includes DRI2 with the intel driver, so it seems it's here now. Have you considered using it in fglrx or radeon? Seems a shame to have this working in intel but not ati.
    As I understand it, DRI2 is still pretty "green" and not ready for widespread use. The FOSS Intel driver is the most worked on, so it's no surprise that it got support before anything else out there.

  2. #222
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    321

    Default

    I figure since the next generation of cards is coming out soon, i might as well ask, Approximately when will the FGLRX Driver have support for the Radeon R700 cores (as in Radeon HD4000 series) since the release is planned for next month?

  3. #223
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,114

    Default

    I remember seeing some IDs for them in this last driver.

  4. #224
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    /dev/hell
    Posts
    297

    Default

    ok I've got a question!

    why having an Unofficial bugzilla!?

    it's useless since no dev looks in it! changes proposed in the bugzilla don't go upstream and if someone has an issue, devs don't try to understand it better, and solve it.

    it's completely useless an unofficial bugzilla... it should become official so we could work together with devs.

    otherwise there's no way to do it, since this forum isn't exactly the right way to do things..

    so, what's the better way to contribute?

  5. #225
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vighy View Post
    ok I've got a question!

    why having an Unofficial bugzilla!?

    it's useless since no dev looks in it! changes proposed in the bugzilla don't go upstream and if someone has an issue, devs don't try to understand it better, and solve it.

    it's completely useless an unofficial bugzilla... it should become official so we could work together with devs.

    otherwise there's no way to do it, since this forum isn't exactly the right way to do things..

    so, what's the better way to contribute?
    I can answer that one right here

    The bugzilla is "unofficial" in the sense that it is community maintained; we are not trying to keep it up to date ourselves. That said, we do look at it and we do pick off the highest priority issues and try to reproduce them in house so we can troubleshoot and fix them.

    We are going to be doing more of this over time, and we'll talk about that more when Matthew and I are actually able to get through the rest of the Q&A list

  6. #226
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    23

    Exclamation Hint ...

    Hi AMD/ATI team member,

    Could you please ask your company (AMD/ATI) to provide you with more RAM to proceed your tests ?

    I mean with like 4Gb or more, you would have noticed immediatelly that fglrx ain't working and the bug would be fixed already ...

    I keep hoping ... and I'll may be open a "AMD/ATI linux drivers crew donnation" to make this faster ... With only one buck per disappointed user, we could offer you like hundreds gigs of RAM !

  7. #227
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,579

    Default

    We have a number of machines with 4GB or more and fglrx runs fine on them. This issue seems to be system-bios specific (and possible kernel-specific as well, not sure yet).

  8. #228
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Merida
    Posts
    1,114

    Default

    4GB runs fine on my machine. I have heard more complaints about this from guys running Intel based boards, but that could be because there seem to be more people running such boards at the moment.

  9. #229
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    23

    Post Well ...

    It seems that this problem is occuring only using a 64bit distros (Seen on Ubuntu64, Slamd64 ...) and not on 32bit ones.

    I'll give you my comp specs (it may help)

    ASUS P5E (latest bios)
    INTEL Q6600
    4Gb (2x2Gb) Crucial Ballistix Tracer PC-8500
    AMD/ATI 3870x2 (unplugged / not supported yet)
    AMD/ATI 3870

    Distro : Slamd64
    Kernel : Problem seen using kernels 2.6.24 and 2.6.25.4.
    Drivers : AMD/ATI 8.4 & 8.5

    Bug 1 :
    Description : X crashes the comp at start-up.
    Solution : disable the memory remapping feature in the bios (chipset options ==> advanced options)
    Issue : only 3,3 Gb of RAM usable ...

    Bug 2 :
    Using 8.5 drivers, got black borders around a shrinked display :x
    Solution : go back to 2.6.24 kernel with AMD/ATI 8.4 drivers.
    Issue : no 2.6.25 kernel support.

  10. #230
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Interesting, I have 4 GB ram with an AMD64X2 CPU where the whole memory remapping thing works completely different, but my system hang is like bug 1 described here - (X crashes/hangs system at startup).
    I fear I will have to physically remove two sticks of RAM (back to 2GB) in order to test, but my curiosity is definitely piqued.

    If it turns out the driver can't handle the AMD64 CPU's remapping above 4GB of RAM either, then that's REALLY a lot of negative brownie points for AMD/ATI!!

Posting Permissions

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