Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

890GX/HD4290 dual display question

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Can you try vesa/fglrx/windows and see it any of those work? I just tested my pciephy board and DP works fine (DP direct and DP->DVI). Have you tried booting with only the DP port connected? Does the bios come up on it in that case?

    Comment


    • #32
      I will try Vesa.
      fglrx is difficult -- f12 won't boot this machine and fglrx doesn't like xserver 1.8. I can try an F12 unity spin, but the cable modem is really slow right now (weekend thing I guess...)

      Just about to try W7/catalyst.

      To be honest though, I am suspecting that this is a bios problem. I've sent the manufacturer tech support requests, but I doubt that they'll get back to me before monday.

      Comment


      • #33
        I see no problem with xserver 1.8. The only patch i saw once forced 24 bit color depth, but usually

        rm -f /etc/X11/xorg.conf*
        aticonfig --initial --nobackup

        writes a correct xorg.conf.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Kano View Post
          I see no problem with xserver 1.8. The only patch i saw once forced 24 bit color depth, but usually

          rm -f /etc/X11/xorg.conf*
          aticonfig --initial --nobackup

          writes a correct xorg.conf.
          Really? I'm looking at the release notes for the latest version posted on amd's website and it says xorg 7.5, which is xserver 1.7.

          Anyways, windoze is a no-go. Not because the equipment didn't work, but because, not surprisingly, windoze is a no-go. Install catalyst, reboot, and BLACK SCREEN with a mouse pointer. Manually typing in the password (as a guess) yields a blue square. Ctrl-alt-delete makes it go blank again, escape brings back the blue square. What a piece of turd.

          Comment


          • #35
            Well for the time being, at least until I can get some more information, I've shoved in my old nemesis 7800GTX. Nouveau is working well enough for it. I've got a Fedora unity respin of F12 on its way down, but it isn't going to be here for a while.

            I hope that the manufacturer can give me *some* kind of information on this. Even if they say "sorry, its a broken bios..." at least I'll know.

            fglrx on F13 appears to be a no-go. There's no packages anywhere, and the installer is very quick to barf.

            Comment


            • #36
              I'll post here again if I come up with any more information.

              Thanks for all the help (both of you). I really do appreciate it.

              Comment


              • #37
                I tested maverick with my script, xserver 1.8.x was used there and driver 10-6.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Kano View Post
                  I tested maverick with my script, xserver 1.8.x was used there and driver 10-6.
                  This is what it gives me with fglrx 10.6:
                  http://pastebin.com/qst5BNhz

                  (EE) Failed to load module "fglrx" (module requirement mismatch, 0)

                  Unity12 has finally arrived, I'm going to see if it'll work.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Maybe read what i worte: i do NOT test fedora.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Kano View Post
                      Maybe read what i worte: i do NOT test fedora.
                      That's ok, I'm not worried about that. I do use Fedora, and it didn't work for me on Fedora 13.

                      But it *did* work for me on Fedora 12 Unity xserver 1.7...

                      sortof.

                      I got fglrx running. On one monitor -- connected to the DVI plug.

                      But what is interesting, despite still not working, is that it was able to detect that *something* was there on the DP. It wasn't able to do anything with it, but it DID KNOW that something was there, which is a lot more than I was previously able to get out of it.

                      This is the xorg log: http://pastebin.com/CaG86cs4
                      I don't think this is going to lead to any epiphanies. Though it is able to find *something* there, there is definitely a communications failure since it can't read the EDID, and though fglrx claims that it is activating it (at 640x480), there is no output on the monitor.

                      DisplayPort = Display0 = DFP1 = tmds1
                      DVI = Display1 = DFP2 = tmds2i

                      So basically one of two things;
                      1) it can still detect things on the DP even if the DP is disabled via bios bug, it just can't communicate properly,
                      2) that this DP is DP-only and doesn't work with DP-DVI passive adapters.

                      I'm going to see if I can find an active adapter from some store that allows returns.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        You shouldn't need an active adapter and DP->DVI will work. DP is designed to be backwards compatible with single link DVI. I have an asus board with the pciephy-based DP port and it works fine with both DP directly and DVI via a passive adapter. It sounds to me like your board may have issues if neither the open or closed driver is able to use the DP port. Is it possible that your DP->DVI adapter is bad? Did changing any of those bios options I suggested help?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I know it shouldn't need it, but I understand that DVI requires a clock signal that may or may not be available on a DP. Typically under these circumstances it should be, but board maker may have their own ideas.

                          In any case, its a no-go with an active adapter. Both the passive and active adapters are tested and confirmed working on an asus board.

                          So that leaves two possibilities; defective bios, defective board.

                          Bloody sucks.

                          Guess I'll wait for the manufacturer to get back to me.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Just send it back.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Kano View Post
                              Just send it back.
                              Interesting idea, but I made the unfortunate mistake of ordering the board online, so it'll end up costing me way more in pain-in-the-a$$ than just buying an addon card.

                              I have a feeling that it is bios related.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                A Nv G210 would beat the onboard vga anyway

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X