[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: xorg 7 and ATI proprietary driver (fglrx)

Liam O'Toole wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 06:19:38 -0700
Erik Steffl <steffl@bigfoot.com> wrote:

Liam O'Toole wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 19:16:15 -0700
Erik Steffl <steffl@bigfoot.com> wrote:

   Is it possible to make ATI proprietary driver fglrx work with
the latest xorg packages?
Yes. I have fglrx working with xorg and the stock Debian 686 kernel
in an up-to-date sid installation.

The first thing you should do is ignore xorg and check whether the
fglrx kernel module can be loaded. What does 'modprobe fglrx' tell
   I removed drm from kernel and now the module is loaded:

jojda:/home/erik# lsmod | grep fglrx
fglrx                 462048  -

   and even xorg log indicates that everything works, at least I
think that's what this message means:

(II) fglrx(0): DRI initialization successfull!

   but it's still not working, fglrxinfo says:

display: :0.0  screen: 0
OpenGL vendor string: Mesa project: www.mesa3d.org
OpenGL renderer string: Mesa GLX Indirect
OpenGL version string: 1.2 (1.5 Mesa 6.4.1)

   any ideas?


Do you load the GLcore module explicitly in the "Module" section
of xorg.conf? If so then remove that line.

  no I don't, here's the module section of my xorg.conf:

Section "Module"
	# erik: does not exist: Load	"GLcore"
	Load	"bitmap"
	Load	"dbe"
	Load	"ddc"
	# erik: nvidia doesn't use it: Load	"dri"
	Load	"extmod"
	Load	"freetype"
	# Load	"glx"
	Load	"int10"
	# erik: does not exist: Load	"pex5"
	Load	"record"
	# erik: no symbols found: Load	"speedo"
	Load	"type1"
	Load	"vbe"
	# erik: does not exist: Load	"xie"
        # erik: for ati radeon 9800
# This loads the miscellaneous extensions module, and disables
# initialisation of the XFree86-DGA extension within that module.
    SubSection  "extmod"
      Option    "omit xfree86-dga"   # don't initialise the DGA extension
# This loads the GLX module
    Load        "glx"   # libglx.a
    Load        "dri"   # libdri.a


  see anything suspicious?


Reply to: