[fixed] Re: about firefox ... / dont understand anything [radeon]
guess.who at freesurf.fr
Thu Mar 16 07:46:04 UTC 2006
Well, all seem to perfectly work back now :)
After the hell in this world, comes heaven :-p
Seems that switching to radeon driver got the issue....
> Thank you Mike :)
> Well, after i read what you wrote, i realize that i could have a look on
> the driver used by other os i have on my pc (centos 4 and 4.2 and fc4) !
> Centos uses radeon driver. So i have just swith to radeon driver. So
> far so good !
> Gonna see what happens , now :)
> thx anyway
> Mike A. Harris wrote:
>> LarryT wrote:
>>>> A. Which graphics card are you using?
>>> ATI Radeon 7000 RV6DL 32mo
>>>> B. Which drivers for the graphics card are you using?
>>> Not sur to kown how to get this info :!
>>> going through system/admin/display :
>>> "ati - ATI Mach8, Mach32, Mach64 ad Rage XL card"
>>> Here is the pout put of xorg.conf :
>>> Section "Device"
>>> Identifier "Videocard0"
>>> Driver "ati"
>> The "ati" driver wrapper module is a problem which should be avoided.
>> Ideally, in the perfect world, you should be able to use the "ati"
>> wrapper module regardless of what ATI chip family and revision you
>> have, and it should automatically load the proper actual driver for
>> you, as all the "ati" module does, is scan your system and determine
>> what (if any) ATI hardware is present, PCI, AGP, ISA, etc., and if it
>> finds any, it looks up the device in a list which tells it which
>> "real" driver to use. The "real" drivers are "atimisc", "r128", and
>> "radeon". It then loads the proper driver, and unloads itself.
>> Or at least that is the intention of "ati".
>> Unfortunately, the real world doesn't quite line up with this ideal
>> situation very well, and there are often PCI IDs which have been added
>> to the "radeon" driver by one of the many upstream Radeon driver
>> developers, which were not added to the "ati" wrapper's detection
>> routines at the same time, resulting in the "ati" wrapper being
>> unaware of a given chip, when in fact the chip is supported by the
>> "radeon" driver.
>> The result is that the "ati" wrapper will be unable to detect some
>> hardware and reroute it to the "radeon" driver, but if you use the
>> "radeon" driver directly you avoid the middle man, and avoid that
>> problem path entirely.
>> As such, it is very highly recommended to _never_ use the "ati"
>> wrapper for Radeon hardware, as it is very highly likely to not
>> be in perfect sync with the actual current Radeon hardware
>> support. There are other bugs/problems which have come up in
>> the "ati" wrapper over time as well, and while they get fixed
>> eventually, something else inevitably breaks. It's just an extra
>> layer of code which can cause unnecessary grief over just using
>> the proper driver module to begin with: radeon
>> If you use "radeon" as the driver, and your video card doesn't work,
>> don't even bother trying to use "ati", because as I stated above, all
>> "ati" does, is say "oh, you have a Radeon" and load the "radeon"
>> driver. Instead, if the "radeon" driver does not work, file a bug
>> report in X.Org bugzilla and describe the problem in detail, and
>> attach your X server log and config file.
>> Currently, our video detection should detect all supported Radeon
>> hardware and automatically assign them to the "radeon" driver, all
>> Rage 128 hardware and automatically assign it to the "r128" driver,
>> and all Mach64, Rage, RageXL, and older hardware and assign it to
>> the "ati" wrapper (although I suppose in light of what I said
>> above, 'atimisc' might be more appropriate, but the problem case
>> with "ati" has been Radeon hardware, rather than Mach64, so it's
>> a moot point in practice).
>> On a final note, I should state that if you ask around, you will get
>> very different advice about this from some other people perhaps. Some
>> people recommend using the "ati" wrapper for all hardware, and that
>> conflicts with what I am recommending. People who suggest to use
>> the "ati" wrapper for all ATI hardware unfortunately have not had
>> the pleasure of maintaining XFree86 and X.Org X11 in 12 operating
>> system releases over a period of 5.5 years and discovering just how
>> unreliable the "ati" wrapper is in the real world. My advice comes
>> from experience in action, rather than ideological best-case
>> wishful thinking of those who recommend the wrapper. ;o)
More information about the fedora-test-list