Fedora 8 + Linux 2.6.23 Kernel & ATI fglrx

[wiscados]

Fedora 8 uses 2.6.23, am I correct in saying that fglrx at this point does not support 2.6.23? So should I even bother installing fglrx?

[ThomasScheunemann]

Originally Posted by wiscados

Fedora 8 uses 2.6.23, am I correct in saying that fglrx at this point does not support 2.6.23? So should I even bother installing fglrx?

You can find fglrx-patches for Kernel 2.6.23 right in this forum. I have fglrx working using these patches on Fedora 7 with the latest kernel update which is 2.6.23.1-21.fc7, but I have not tried Fedora 8 yet.

It will not work out of the box.

Thomas Scheunemann

[wiscados]

if patchKernel == recompileKernel:
waitFor(fglrx8.43.x)
else:
print("what's it/the thread called?")

[koolmanoncampus]

I had fglrx(8.42) running in rawhide about 2-3 weeks ago.

I got it to install and somewhat work; but I don't think it properly loaded the kernel module... when I ran "fglrxinfo" the program hung.

If I remember correctly openGL seemed to work, but I didn't try it heavily I was trying out some release features of fedora 8. btw - I think the new artwork for this release is top-notch. The fedora artwork team does a good job; but this slide-show background of the day is pretty neat. The whole infinity theme is good. Not sure if I like nodaka over clearlooks though... I typically use a custom gnome theme anyway.


----
what is odd is that fglrx 8.40(running now) and 8.42 both build/work as expected(hate to use the word fine when referring to fglrx!) with 2.6.23 in f7.

[ThomasScheunemann]

Originally Posted by wiscados

if patchKernel == recompileKernel:
waitFor(fglrx8.43.x)
else:
print("what's it/the thread called?")

I am not exactly sure what are saying. The patches posted under http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=567
are for fglrx not for the kernel. I am using the unmodified (not recompiled) latest kernel 2.6.23 from Fedora 7.

All I am saying is that the 2.6.23 kernel in Fedora 8 is no reason why fglrx could not work.

[Christian_L]

Originally Posted by wiscados

Fedora 8 uses 2.6.23, am I correct in saying that fglrx at this point does not support 2.6.23? So should I even bother installing fglrx?

Fedora 8 works with the kmod-fglrx package you can get at livna. Compiz seems to be broken though, I could not get it running, although I had it working under F7 (with crappy video playback performance, though). Seems to be a common problem: http://www.fedoraforum.org/forum/sho...d.php?t=171236

[Christian_L]

Update: amdcccle also stopped working after the update F7->F8.

I would need to set the "vertical refresh" slider to the very right ("quality") in amdccle to remove tearing in video playback - does anybody know whether this can also be done by setting an environment variable or by editing some conf file?

[koolmanoncampus]

Originally Posted by Christian_L

Update: amdcccle also stopped working after the update F7->F8.

I would need to set the "vertical refresh" slider to the very right ("quality") in amdccle to remove tearing in video playback - does anybody know whether this can also be done by setting an environment variable or by editing some conf file?

you can try to see if it can be done with aticonfig...

try aticonfig --help in the terminal.

[wiscados]

Fedora 8 was released after 8.43. Does 8.43 generate F8 specific package? Should I just use the F7 package, or does it even matter? Or maybe just a generic installation..

[pfpenteado]

I had been using fglrx 8.37.6 from livna on Fedora 7 with no problems, for a FireGL V5200 on a ThinkPad Z61p. I installed Fedora 8, and I have no apparent
problems loading the fglrx module, but no xorg.conf I could come up with results in the X server running. I tried the old xorg.conf I used on Fedora 7, the one generated by aticonfig, and many variations on those, like turning on or off aiglx, dri or composite.

There seemed to be no difference when using kernels 2.6.23.1-42.fc8 or 2.6.23.1-49.fc8 (both x86_64), either with the livna rpms, or installing directly with ati-driver-installer-8.42.3-x86.x86_64 (trying to build the package fails, though). The X server log did not look very helpful, it is at http://ati.cchtml.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891

Is there some way I can get a more verbose X server log so I can identify where the problem is? Has anyone encountered a similar problem?