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

Re: driver for ati mobility radeon



On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 11:34 +0100, yag wrote:
> Wackojacko wrote:
> > Marcelo Chiapparini wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I am running a fresh install of etch in an amd64 box. The system has an
> >> ATI Mobility Radeon 9200 video card. xserver-org choosed for it the ati
> >> driver with the radeon module during the installing. Since I am having
> >> problems regarding the gui, I would like to give fglrx-driver a try,
> >> since it also supports my video card. I would like to know, just in case
> >> I change my mind and decide to go back to the xorg driver, how do that
> >> with the driver from the fglrx package installed?
> >> thanks in advance
> >>
> >> Marcelo
> >>
> 
> For that graphics card, the open source driver should work quite 
> well, are you sure it does not have to do with any settings in 
> xorg.conf?

I don't konw. I have a Sony Vaio notebook, with the same graphic card
that the amd64 system mentioned above: ATI Mobility Radeon 9220. In the
Vaio notebook, which runs the x86 port of etch, the graphic resources
works very well with the xorg ati driver and the radeon module. The
problem is in the amd64 system (but really I don't know if my problem is
indeed due to the graphic driver)... 

> > Simply change the driver section of xorg.conf back to ati, either 
> > manually using your favourite editor, or using dpkg-reconfigure 
> > xserver-xorg.  Restart X.
> 
> > HTH
> > 
> > Wackojacko
> > 
> I have the feeling that, at least in the past, the installation of 
> the propietary driver used to leave some broken simlinks somewhere, 
> although that might have got fixed...

Even for the debian etch package fglrx-driver? I want to try the debian
package...
http://packages.debian.org/stable/x11/fglrx-control
http://packages.debian.org/stable/x11/fglrx-driver

anyway, I can look for another solution before trying the fglrx
driver...

regards

Marcelo


> 
-- 
Marcelo Chiapparini
marcelo.chiappa@gmail.com



Reply to: