Greets.
First off, this is NOT on a Mac or PPC system. :)
I seem to have run into a hardware issue while trying out FC5 test 3 i386. I have an ATI Radeon 9600 (RV350 AGP) connected to an Apple Cinema Display 30. This card is known to support the dual link dvi connection required to display 2560x1600 which is the native resolution of the ACD 30.
During install I see no video after leaving text mode. I can switch back to vt2 and check the logs. The X server apparently launches just fine and the only EE logged is about dri not being able to load. I think that is expected given the chipset of the 9600. I've tried various video resolutions that I know to work, including 640x480, 800x600, and 1024x768.
This system is a dual boot config with Windows XP SP2 also on the drive. The video card and monitor work as expected under XP, which is great to confirm that I have the monitor hooked to the right DVI port of the 9600 and that the monitor will work at full resolution.
Any suggestions for getting video during install? For now I'm installing in text mode and plan to try and get video after the install is complete.
-- Scott
On Feb 28, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Scott wrote:
First off, this is NOT on a Mac or PPC system. :)
I seem to have run into a hardware issue while trying out FC5 test 3 i386. I have an ATI Radeon 9600 (RV350 AGP) connected to an Apple Cinema Display 30. This card is known to support the dual link dvi connection required to display 2560x1600 which is the native resolution of the ACD 30.
Attached are my xorg.conf and Xorg.0.log files. Using these basic settings I get no video when running 'X' as root. (just for testing, things like gdm and startx do not work either, obviously). I see in the Gentoo wiki that someone has this display working under Linux using the binary nvidia driver however obviously I'm trying to use the xorg provided radeon driver for my Radeon 9600 adapter.
Wild ass guess, does the radeon driver properly setup dual link dvi mode which is required by this display? For reference here's the Gentoo wiki page: http://gentoo-wiki.com/HARDWARE_Apple_30% 22_Cinema_Display#xorg.conf
-- Scott
On 01.03.2006 00:39, Scott wrote:
On Feb 28, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Scott wrote:
I seem to have run into a hardware issue while trying out FC5 test 3 i386. I have an ATI Radeon 9600 (RV350 AGP) connected to an Apple Cinema Display 30. This card is known to support the dual link dvi connection required to display 2560x1600 which is the native resolution of the ACD 30.
Attached are my xorg.conf and Xorg.0.log files.
"if it is not in bugzilla it does not exist"
On Feb 28, 2006, at 7:47 PM, shrek-m@gmx.de wrote:
On 01.03.2006 00:39, Scott wrote:
On Feb 28, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Scott wrote:
I seem to have run into a hardware issue while trying out FC5 test 3 i386. I have an ATI Radeon 9600 (RV350 AGP) connected to an Apple Cinema Display 30. This card is known to support the dual link dvi connection required to display 2560x1600 which is the native resolution of the ACD 30.
Attached are my xorg.conf and Xorg.0.log files.
"if it is not in bugzilla it does not exist"
Agreed. Before I go there I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing something obviously, like a recommended RADEON driver setting required for dual link dvi mode.
The blank screen on install along with a copy of the X.log and X config from the install disk is something I will bugzilla. Might be nice though to see if I could gather more info other than 'it doesn't work' :)
-- Scott
On 01.03.2006 03:36, Scott wrote:
The blank screen on install along with a copy of the X.log and X config from the install disk is something I will bugzilla. Might be nice though to see if I could gather more info other than 'it doesn't work' :)
is your problem the "raedoen 9600" or the "cinema display 30" ? i have problems with the "radeon 9600" on a powermac and a "iiyama vision master pro 451"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180735
the resolution is not as expected but i am happy that X is running now.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 4:15 AM, shrek-m@gmx.de wrote:
On 01.03.2006 03:36, Scott wrote:
The blank screen on install along with a copy of the X.log and X config from the install disk is something I will bugzilla. Might be nice though to see if I could gather more info other than 'it doesn't work' :)
is your problem the "raedoen 9600" or the "cinema display 30" ? i have problems with the "radeon 9600" on a powermac and a "iiyama vision master pro 451
I do not know. As a wild guess I would say the problem is with the xorg radeon driver not supporting the dual link dvi mode needed to drive the Apple Cinema Display 30. I have seen working video in xorg 6.8.2 running the Radeon 9600 and the ACD 30 at 1024x768 under Ubuntu breezy when using the radeon driver. However, I still has the same issue of not being able to do native 2560x1600.
I loaded up FC5-test3 figuring I would try the latest xorg release I could find in a distro to see if the problem was something that had been fixed in the radeon driver or X11 code. So far though I have not been able to get video at 1024x678 like I had running with xorg 6.8.2 in Ubuntu.
So I _think_ the problem is with the video card or xorg driver than the ACD 30. I'm concerned, but not stressed out about, as to why I cannot seem to get any video at any resolution under xorg 7.0.0 in FC5-test3 where I could at least get 1024x768 under xorg 6.8.2 in Ubuntu. The real goal is to find out why I cannot get native 2560x1600 running. :)
Ihttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180735 the resolution is not as expected but i am happy that X is running now.
Thanks for the link to this. Your xorg.conf and mine are identical as far as the radeon driver setup.
For reference here are the specs on the ACD 30: http://www.apple.com/ displays/specs.html. The following detected DDC data and panel type from the ACD 30 is accurate according to the specs I've seen:
(II) RADEON(0): I2C bus "DDC" initialized. (II) RADEON(0): Legacy BIOS detected (II) RADEON(0): Connector0: DDCType-2, DACType-0, TMDSType-1, ConnectorType-3 (II) RADEON(0): Connector1: DDCType-3, DACType-1, TMDSType-0, ConnectorType-3 (II) RADEON(0): I2C device "DDC:ddc2" registered at address 0xA0. (II) RADEON(0): I2C device "DDC:ddc2" removed. (II) RADEON(0): I2C device "DDC:ddc2" registered at address 0xA0. (II) RADEON(0): I2C device "DDC:ddc2" removed. (II) RADEON(0): I2C device "DDC:ddc2" registered at address 0xA0. (II) RADEON(0): I2C device "DDC:ddc2" removed. (II) RADEON(0): DDC Type: 3, Detected Type: 0 (II) RADEON(0): I2C device "DDC:ddc2" registered at address 0xA0. (II) RADEON(0): I2C device "DDC:ddc2" removed. (II) RADEON(0): DDC Type: 2, Detected Type: 3 (II) RADEON(0): EDID data from the display on port 2----------------------- (II) RADEON(0): Manufacturer: APP Model: 9232 Serial#: 33556679 (II) RADEON(0): Year: 2005 Week: 47 (II) RADEON(0): EDID Version: 1.3 (II) RADEON(0): Digital Display Input (II) RADEON(0): Max H-Image Size [cm]: horiz.: 64 vert.: 40 (II) RADEON(0): Gamma: 2.20 (II) RADEON(0): DPMS capabilities: Off; RGB/Color Display (II) RADEON(0): First detailed timing not preferred mode in violation of standard! (II) RADEON(0): redX: 0.640 redY: 0.343 greenX: 0.292 greenY: 0.611 (II) RADEON(0): blueX: 0.146 blueY: 0.074 whiteX: 0.313 whiteY: 0.331 (II) RADEON(0): Manufacturer's mask: 0 (II) RADEON(0): Supported additional Video Mode: (II) RADEON(0): clock: 71.0 MHz Image Size: 641 x 401 mm (II) RADEON(0): h_active: 1280 h_sync: 1328 h_sync_end 1360 h_blank_end 1440 h_border: 0 (II) RADEON(0): v_active: 800 v_sync: 803 v_sync_end 809 v_blanking: 823 v_border: 0 (II) RADEON(0): Supported additional Video Mode: (II) RADEON(0): clock: 268.0 MHz Image Size: 641 x 401 mm (II) RADEON(0): h_active: 2560 h_sync: 2608 h_sync_end 2640 h_blank_end 2720 h_border: 0 (II) RADEON(0): v_active: 1600 v_sync: 1603 v_sync_end 1609 v_blanking: 1646 v_border: 0 (II) RADEON(0): Serial No: CY54703AUG1 (II) RADEON(0): Monitor name: Cinema HD (II) RADEON(0): Number of EDID sections to follow: 1 (II) RADEON(0): (II) RADEON(0): Primary: Monitor -- TMDS Connector -- DVI-I DAC Type -- Primary TMDS Type -- External DDC Type -- DVI_DDC (II) RADEON(0): Secondary: Monitor -- NONE Connector -- DVI-I DAC Type -- TVDAC/ExtDAC TMDS Type -- Internal DDC Type -- VGA_DDC (II) RADEON(0): PLL parameters: rf=2700 rd=12 min=20000 max=40000; xclk=27000 (WW) RADEON(0): Failed to detect secondary monitor, MergedFB/Clone mode disabled (==) RADEON(0): Using gamma correction (1.0, 1.0, 1.0) (II) RADEON(0): Validating modes on Primary head --------- (II) RADEON(0): DFP table revision: 4 (II) RADEON(0): Panel infos found from DDC detailed: 1280x800 (II) RADEON(0): Panel infos found from DDC detailed: 2560x1600 (II) RADEON(0): Valid Mode from Detailed timing table: 1280x800 (II) RADEON(0): Valid Mode from Detailed timing table: 2560x1600 (II) RADEON(0): Total of 2 mode(s) found. (II) RADEON(0): Total number of valid DDC mode(s) found: 2 (--) RADEON(0): Virtual size is 2560x1600 (pitch 2560)
-- Scott
Scott wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 4:15 AM, shrek-m@gmx.de wrote:
On 01.03.2006 03:36, Scott wrote:
The blank screen on install along with a copy of the X.log and X config from the install disk is something I will bugzilla. Might be nice though to see if I could gather more info other than 'it doesn't work' :)
is your problem the "raedoen 9600" or the "cinema display 30" ? i have problems with the "radeon 9600" on a powermac and a "iiyama vision master pro 451
I do not know. As a wild guess I would say the problem is with the xorg radeon driver not supporting the dual link dvi mode needed to drive the Apple Cinema Display 30. I have seen working video in xorg 6.8.2 running the Radeon 9600 and the ACD 30 at 1024x768 under Ubuntu breezy when using the radeon driver. However, I still has the same issue of not being able to do native 2560x1600.
I loaded up FC5-test3 figuring I would try the latest xorg release I could find in a distro to see if the problem was something that had been fixed in the radeon driver or X11 code. So far though I have not been able to get video at 1024x678 like I had running with xorg 6.8.2 in Ubuntu.
So I _think_ the problem is with the video card or xorg driver than the ACD 30. I'm concerned, but not stressed out about, as to why I cannot seem to get any video at any resolution under xorg 7.0.0 in FC5-test3 where I could at least get 1024x768 under xorg 6.8.2 in Ubuntu. The real goal is to find out why I cannot get native 2560x1600 running. :)
Ihttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180735 the resolution is not as expected but i am happy that X is running now.
Thanks for the link to this. Your xorg.conf and mine are identical as far as the radeon driver setup.
For reference here are the specs on the ACD 30: http://www.apple.com/ displays/specs.html. The following detected DDC data and panel type from the ACD 30 is accurate according to the specs I've seen:
You need to use proprietary drivers with the 30" flat panels from Apple or Dell to get it working as one would expect. That probably wont change much until the video hardware vendors wake up and start supporting OSS again.
I would _love_ to buy 2 of the Dell 30" panels, and would do it in a heartbeat if I could get everything to work properly with the OSS drivers we ship with the OS. I refuse to use proprietary drivers in Linux on my desktop, so such cool display hardware is not on my radar at least until there are OSS drivers that support them.
Maybe Intel or someone will come to the rescue with new hardware in the future, and solving the modesetting problems in the OSS Intel driver currently.
Very lame to have such cool hardware available, and fairly craptastic support for it in Linux/X.
I've stuck with ATI FireGL 8800 boards for the last number of years after the R200 DRI support was added to X, and had good results, but that doesn't help much with the snazzy 30" display problem. ;o/
Matrox has some funky new hardware with fibre optic connectors that looks nifty. It'll be interesting to see if they provide OSS support for it. ;o)
For now, I'll probably stick with FireGL 8800 until the fan dies on it.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Mike A. Harris wrote:
You need to use proprietary drivers with the 30" flat panels from Apple or Dell to get it working as one would expect. That probably wont change much until the video hardware vendors wake up and start supporting OSS again.
Does this confirm my suspicion that the xorg radeon driver does not support dual link dvi mode that is required to drive these displays? Just kind of curious if it's actually been looked at and I'm sure you would know. :)
Maybe Intel or someone will come to the rescue with new hardware in the future, and solving the modesetting problems in the OSS Intel driver currently.
One could only hope. I'm more than a bit disapointed at the current state of video hardware support in Linux myself. It seems that the only real solution for fast 3D or MPEG HW decoding is vendor proprietary nvida or ati drivers. When I purchased this display I knew there would be a real chance of being forced into a proprietary driver and I deliberately made the choice to go with ATI based on the current r300 work and the past support ATI has given OSS.
Now, the best I can do is dial up the ATI support line and request a working X config for their driver. My previous attempts under Ubuntu xorg 6.8.2 with the latest fglrx resulted in no display under X AND corruption in text mode after attempting to run X. At least the xorg radeon driver didn't screw up the console after exiting X! :)
Anyone want to comment on the state of fglrx with xorg 7.0.0 in FC5- test3? Is it worth me trying or should I go back to xorg 6.x ?
-- Scott
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 07:52:35PM -0500, Scott wrote:
state of video hardware support in Linux myself. It seems that the only real solution for fast 3D or MPEG HW decoding is vendor proprietary nvida or ati drivers. When I purchased this display I
Mpeg hardware decode is actually not very useful these days. If you need it then you can get it on the low end via boards open source, but on a P4 or Athlon64 its hardly useful and most boards just provide scalers and colourspace conversion which actually is the important stuff
driver and I deliberately made the choice to go with ATI based on the current r300 work and the past support ATI has given OSS.
The R300 3D is getting pretty decent, its unfortunate that ATI no longer help in Linux 3D and while various people have speculated that Xbox2 being ATI has a lot to do with it, but afaik nobody has shown that to be the case, or had a sane explanation from ATI.
Alan
On Mar 1, 2006, at 8:05 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
Mpeg hardware decode is actually not very useful these days. If you need it then you can get it on the low end via boards open source, but on a P4 or Athlon64 its hardly useful and most boards just provide scalers and colourspace conversion which actually is the important stuff
Do you use MythTV with HDTV (1080i and 720p) video? It takes a lot of CPU to do decoding, scaling, etc without a dedicated chip. A big CPU means higher cost, larger power supply, and lots of cooling leading to excessive noise in the living room, the last place you want it.
For MythTV it seems most people end up going with the nvidia boards and jumping through flaming hoops to get XvMC working in the proprietary driver to assist with HDTV decoding so they can use a low end CPU and keep costs and noise down. Even at that XvMC isn't pretty when it comes to quality of deinterlacing a 1080i stream compared to what xine or mplayer can do in software when given enough CPU.
Having quality OSS drivers that handled dedicated hardware for decoding HDTV video would be nice. Unichrome is a great effort in that regard. Unfortunately, I personally find the availability of unichrome XvMC supported chipsets that can handle 1280x720 or 1920x1080 video output lacking in main stream motherboards. Admittedly, most users I've seen on the MythTV lists do not seem to be as concerned about HDTV quality or output as I am :)
-- Scott
Scott wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Mike A. Harris wrote:
You need to use proprietary drivers with the 30" flat panels from Apple or Dell to get it working as one would expect. That probably wont change much until the video hardware vendors wake up and start supporting OSS again.
Does this confirm my suspicion that the xorg radeon driver does not support dual link dvi mode that is required to drive these displays? Just kind of curious if it's actually been looked at and I'm sure you would know. :)
To the best of my knowledge, the only driver that supports this is Nvidia's proprietary driver. I don't know if ATI's fglrx driver supports it or not, but someone else might be able to comment.
Maybe Intel or someone will come to the rescue with new hardware in the future, and solving the modesetting problems in the OSS Intel driver currently.
One could only hope. I'm more than a bit disapointed at the current state of video hardware support in Linux myself. It seems that the only real solution for fast 3D or MPEG HW decoding is vendor proprietary nvida or ati drivers. When I purchased this display I knew there would be a real chance of being forced into a proprietary driver and I deliberately made the choice to go with ATI based on the current r300 work and the past support ATI has given OSS.
Yes, it is quite upsetting and frustrating to many users, and also to developers.
Anyone want to comment on the state of fglrx with xorg 7.0.0 in FC5- test3? Is it worth me trying or should I go back to xorg 6.x ?
I'm not sure how closely any of the hardware vendors track Fedora development with their drivers, however traditionally they seem to release drivers a month or so after a new OS release, which claims to work with the new OS release. I'd recommend reading the documentation in the driver download to see what they claim to support in any given driver release, and if FC5 isn't listed, wait until it is listed.
Otherwise, it's probably just a lot of headaches ;)
On 02.03.2006 02:05, Mike A. Harris wrote:
I'm not sure how closely any of the hardware vendors track Fedora development with their drivers, however traditionally they seem to release drivers a month or so after a new OS release, which claims to work with the new OS release.
this is probably true for x86* but afaics no proprietary driver (ati, nvidia) for ppc*
https://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894&task=knowledg... www.ati.com / drivers+software / linux / linux display driver + software x86 x86_64
www.nvidia.com / download drivers / ... / no ppc*
On Thu, 2006-02-03 at 09:01 +0100, shrek-m@gmx.de wrote:
On 02.03.2006 02:05, Mike A. Harris wrote:
I'm not sure how closely any of the hardware vendors track Fedora development with their drivers, however traditionally they seem to release drivers a month or so after a new OS release, which claims to work with the new OS release.
this is probably true for x86* but afaics no proprietary driver (ati, nvidia) for ppc*
https://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894&task=knowledg... www.ati.com / drivers+software / linux / linux display driver + software x86 x86_64
www.nvidia.com / download drivers / ... / no ppc*
I know we all love Linux here, but I have not been able to figure out why, people with Mac's don't just use the OS X that they came with. Whenever my boss threatens to make me use MS Office, I have told him that the only way I can comply is if I had a Mac with OS X, so that I could continue to use the Unix utilities I need to do my job, I don't specifically need MS Office to do my job.
Has anyone seen the info on the new Intel based Mac Mini's?
An just to confuse things, does Anyone know if any of the Mac Intel hardware will run Linux?
TTFN
On 02.03.2006 17:53, Guy Fraser wrote:
I know we all love Linux here, but I have not been able to figure out why, people with Mac's don't just use the OS X that they came with.
1,5 years with osx 10.3, later osx 10.4 and osx-server 10.4 osx has nice features and nice guis but ...
... i will fedora on my macs if possible with wlan and X out of the box without propietary drivers
Has anyone seen the info on the new Intel based Mac Mini's?
An just to confuse things, does Anyone know if any of the Mac Intel hardware will run Linux?
probably not :-(
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2006-January/msg00563.html
Subject: intel-based macs
<snip> No. Off the top of my head:
- our x86 kernels don't have CONFIG_EFI - installer doesn't do GPT partitioning on x86 - we don't have a bootloader for them </snip>
On Wed, 2006-01-03 at 20:05 -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Mike A. Harris wrote:
You need to use proprietary drivers with the 30" flat panels from Apple or Dell to get it working as one would expect. That probably wont change much until the video hardware vendors wake up and start supporting OSS again.
Does this confirm my suspicion that the xorg radeon driver does not support dual link dvi mode that is required to drive these displays? Just kind of curious if it's actually been looked at and I'm sure you would know. :)
To the best of my knowledge, the only driver that supports this is Nvidia's proprietary driver. I don't know if ATI's fglrx driver supports it or not, but someone else might be able to comment.
Maybe Intel or someone will come to the rescue with new hardware in the future, and solving the modesetting problems in the OSS Intel driver currently.
One could only hope. I'm more than a bit disapointed at the current state of video hardware support in Linux myself. It seems that the only real solution for fast 3D or MPEG HW decoding is vendor proprietary nvida or ati drivers. When I purchased this display I knew there would be a real chance of being forced into a proprietary driver and I deliberately made the choice to go with ATI based on the current r300 work and the past support ATI has given OSS.
Yes, it is quite upsetting and frustrating to many users, and also to developers.
I guess I missed that, I gave up on ATI after trying for a long time to get my Radeon AIW 8500D to work properly. I recently poked it into box I temporarily was dual booting, and it worked fine.
I suppose ATI woke smelled the coffee, but has just rolled over and gone back to sleep. And I was almost ready to give them another go, I guess I will just stick with the Nvidia, at least they are consistent.
Anyone want to comment on the state of fglrx with xorg 7.0.0 in FC5- test3? Is it worth me trying or should I go back to xorg 6.x ?
I'm not sure how closely any of the hardware vendors track Fedora development with their drivers, however traditionally they seem to release drivers a month or so after a new OS release, which claims to work with the new OS release. I'd recommend reading the documentation in the driver download to see what they claim to support in any given driver release, and if FC5 isn't listed, wait until it is listed.
Otherwise, it's probably just a lot of headaches ;)
-
Alan Cox -
Guy Fraser -
Mike A. Harris -
Scott -
shrek-m＠gmx.de