fglrx on xorg 7.2R3, is it doable?

GamerX · 04-08-2007, 05:50 PM

Video card: Radeon X800 GTO (AGP)
Currently I'm using the open source "radeon" that comes in xf86-video-ati-6.6.3-i486-1, it works, provides some GL acceleration, but I can't get direct rendering to work (I went through at least half a dozen wiki articles on this to no avail, please no more!). and therefore no compiz or beryl!

This is what the installer script says:

Code:

Created directory fglrx-install.s2RIaP
Verifying archive integrity... All good.
Uncompressing ATI Proprietary Linux Driver-8.35.5.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
==================================================
 ATI Technologies Linux Driver Installer/Packager 
==================================================
Detected configuration:
Architecture: i686 (32-bit)
X Server: Unknown X Window

Detected version of X does not have a matching 'x120' directory
You may override the detected version using the following syntax:
     X_VERSION=<xdir> ./ati-driver-installer-<ver>-<arch>.run [--install]

The following values may be used for <xdir>:
    x430        XFree86 4.3.x
    x430_64a    XFree86 4.3.x 64-bit
    x680        X.Org 6.8.x
    x680_64a    X.Org 6.8.x 64-bit
    x690        X.Org 6.9.x
    x690_64a    X.Org 6.9.x 64-bit
    x700        X.Org 7.0.x
    x700_64a    X.Org 7.0.x 64-bit
    x710        X.Org 7.1.x
    x710_64a    X.Org 7.1.x 64-bit
Removing temporary directory: fglrx-install.s2RIaP

It seems to be picking up xorg-server 1.2.99.903 module.

It seems at this point that there are 3 options:
- Wait for ATI's official version, hah! xorg 7.2 is still a RC so not anytime soon.
- Stick with available radeon drivers
- Hack ATI's installer

I tried compiling/copying the binaries but the driver complains it was built for xorg 7.1.* and being run on 7.2. Has anyone actually managed to do this and get the fglrx driver working?

H_TeXMeX_H · 04-09-2007, 11:07 AM

Code:

Detected version of X does not have a matching 'x120' directory
You may override the detected version using the following syntax:
     X_VERSION=<xdir> ./ati-driver-installer-<ver>-<arch>.run [--install]

The following values may be used for <xdir>:
    x430        XFree86 4.3.x
    x430_64a    XFree86 4.3.x 64-bit
    x680        X.Org 6.8.x
    x680_64a    X.Org 6.8.x 64-bit
    x690        X.Org 6.9.x
    x690_64a    X.Org 6.9.x 64-bit
    x700        X.Org 7.0.x
    x700_64a    X.Org 7.0.x 64-bit
    x710        X.Org 7.1.x
    x710_64a    X.Org 7.1.x 64-bit

Obviously, there is no option for X.Org 7.2.x. Until there is, I don't see a way to do it. So you said you tried X.Org 7.1.x ? 'X_VERSION=x710 ./ati-driver-installer-<ver>-<arch>.run'

jong357 · 04-09-2007, 11:37 AM

7.2 has been out of RC stage for quite some time. It sounds like your still using the development version of xorg-server that Pat uploaded awhile back. It's no ones fault but ATI's. Their linux support has been unaceptable, plain and simple. X11R7.2.0 AND kernel 2.6.20 has been out for 2 months now but there are no new drivers in sight from ATI.

Here is what I did, altho it still results in no hardware accel.

extract the 8.35.5 drivers like so:

Code:

./ati-driver-installer-8.35.5-x86.x86_64.run --extract ATI
cd ATI/common/lib/modules/fglrx/build_mod
patch -p1 -i ../../../../../packages/Fedora/firegl_public.c.patch

The patch is for 2.6.20 kernels.

Code:

cd ../../../../../
ln -sf x710 x720
./ati-installer.sh -- --install

If it will only let you do the "expert" install, then do so and leave "/" as the install path. That still leaves you drivers that are marginally better than radeon/vesa...

I encourage people to write ATI and let them know just how you feel about it. I personally would never dream of buying an ATI card but I didn't really have a choice when I got my Macbook. Eh... Phfffttt... Anyway. Just wait it out I guess... I feel your pain.

jong357 · 04-09-2007, 12:50 PM

I just saw that it complains about x120 and not x720... I don't run slackware-current but I am running X11R7.2.0 on my DIY build. The ati installer see's my version of X as 7.2.0 like it should. Adjust your symlink to x120 then, I guess. Not a huge fan of busting X up into a thousand packages like Slackware is doing so I build mine different. Try and make sure your using xorg-server-1.2.0 and not some wierd dev version like 1.2.0.00.999999999999999999999...

GamerX · 04-09-2007, 06:03 PM

Ya that's pretty much what I tried before, the module builds and installs into seemingly the right directories but then startx comes up with this:

Code:

...
(II) LoadModule: "fglrx"
(II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers//fglrx_drv.so
(II) Module fglrx: vendor="FireGL - ATI Technologies Inc."
        compiled for 7.1.0, module version = 8.35.5
        Module class: X.Org Video Driver
        ABI class: X.Org Video Driver, version 1.0
[atiddxSetup] X version mismatch - detected X.org 1.3.-1.903, required X.org 7.1.0.0
(II) UnloadModule: "fglrx"
(II) Unloading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers//fglrx_drv.so
(EE) Failed to load module "fglrx" (module requirement mismatch, 0)
...

The x710 directory has 2 binaries in it, I wonder if the "compiled for" version is hardcoded in them... how did you get around that?

H_TeXMeX_H · 04-09-2007, 06:29 PM

Well, to me that looks unhackable. You'll probably either have to wait for the lazy fools at ATI to do something, or downgrade to an earlier version of xorg.

GamerX · 04-09-2007, 08:22 PM

Can this modular xorg and xorg 6.9 (from slack 11 CD) coexist somehow?

jong357 · 04-09-2007, 09:42 PM

It's possible, but I'm not sure why you'd want to. Make sure you have xorg-server-1.2.0 installed. I'm going to say that you still have the dev version installed. The ati installer installed just fine for me but I'm running xorg-server-1.2.0 (not on slackware tho)... If you are running 1.2.0 then I'd say you borked your upgrade process some how or Pat has a few kinks to work out of X.... Probably the former.

Try this:

Code:

[root@jaguar ~] Xorg -version

X Window System Version 7.2.0
Release Date: 22 January 2007
X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0, Release 7.2
Build Operating System: Linux 2.6.20.4 i686 Jaguar Linux
Current Operating System: Linux jaguar 2.6.20.6 #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Apr 9 02:32:25 EDT 2007 i686
Build Date: 09 April 2007
        Before reporting problems, check http://wiki.x.org
        to make sure that you have the latest version.
Module Loader present

[root@jaguar ~] ls /var/log/packages/xorg-server-*            
/var/log/packages/xorg-server-1.2.0-i686-1

GamerX · 04-10-2007, 01:25 AM

Code:

X Window System Version 1.2.99.903 (1.3.0 RC 3)
Release Date: 26 March 2007
X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0, Release 1.2.99.903
Build Operating System: Slackware 12.0 Slackware Linux Project
Current Operating System: Linux sm-linux 2.6.18.8 #7 PREEMPT Mon Apr 9 13:06:48 PDT 2007 i686
Build Date: 29 March 2007
        Before reporting problems, check http://wiki.x.org
        to make sure that you have the latest version.
Module Loader present

Hmm it looks like the versioning format is either screwed up in this package or it's getting changed in the next release. ATI's drivers are probably assuming they can run on 7.2 even though they're built for 7.1, but not a version 1.2 of course! heh

jong357 · 04-10-2007, 11:41 AM

O.k... I'll say it one more time and one more time only.

Get rid of that development version of xorg-server and INSTALL XORG-SERVER-1.2.0

Honestly, I'm not sure what Pat is doing with xorg-server. 1.2.0 is meant for stable 7.2.0... The version you have installed is straight up development meant for the next release cycle... I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole and I'm actually suprised that it built properly with the rest of X11R7.2

I expiermented with pulling latest versions of various X stuff awhile back and it's nothing but problems.

http://wiki.x.org/wiki/Releases/ModuleVersions

That should be the "law of the land" IMO... Slackware did have 1.2.0 at first but this is the 2nd development upgrade. I'd be curious to know the reason behind the constant updating now. Went from one extreme to the other..

GamerX · 04-10-2007, 08:50 PM

This xserver version is actually running pretty smoothly, the one he had on there just prior to this was a real hellhole.

I downloaded the 1.2.0 sources a couple of days ago, haven't gotten around to compiling it until right now (and it's taking a very very long time!)