48702 xorg.conf, driver settings in Arch x86_64 - Page 2 - Overclock.net

binormalkilla · 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melcar

Radeonhd and radeon do not have 3D acceleration for r6xx and newer cards. You will be stuck with using xrender for composition if you keep those drivers. You need to install the proprietary fglrx drivers. Unfortunately AMD doesn't "officially" support Arch and the distro maintainers in their infinite wisdom droped support for the driver because they got pissed off with it (they don't package it anymore, which was the best and usually only way to get the driver working easily). A third party repo still offers the driver though. I don't use Arch so I can't be of much help, but take a look at the Arch wiki if you haven't already.

You're right, only Xrender was supported. I ended up getting it to work by starting x, then switching to another tty and typing this:
DISPLAY=:0.0 xrandr --output DVI-I_1/digital --off

After that I was able to start x without any problems (well other than being forced to use xrender instead of opengl)

When I get some more spare time I'll install fglrx and get that going with opengl.

It is pretty lame that they only include fgrlx in the AUR, but oh well.

My xorg.conf was very minimal.....really all I had to do was:

sudo Xorg -configure
then vi it and remove all of the lines with input device and monitor. After that running the above command fixed it (no need to run it again.)

I can't take credit for figuring that command out. It was a user at the arch forums.

Melcar · 2 Weeks Ago

I don't know what version of the xserver you're using, but the newest versions don't need a xorg.conf file for configuration. If you generate one with the command you used, all you really need are whatever additional options you want to use/specify that X doesn't load by default, therefore the file can remain rather empty if you want (the one on my laptop only has a few extra power management options for the radeon driver).
As for the situation with Arch, I would think that if enough users "complain" about the situation with fglrx the maintainers will opt to support it again. Given that most of their users run Intel chips (a comparative minority run nvidia last time I bothered to check, and even less run ATI) I don't see it happening easily.

binormalkilla · 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melcar

I don't know what version of the xserver you're using, but the newest versions don't need a xorg.conf file for configuration. If you generate one with the command you used, all you really need are whatever additional options you want to use/specify that X doesn't load by default, therefore the file can remain rather empty if you want (the one on my laptop only has a few extra power management options for the radeon driver).
As for the situation with Arch, I would think that if enough users "complain" about the situation with fglrx the maintainers will opt to support it again. Given that most of their users run Intel chips (a comparative minority run nvidia last time I bothered to check, and even less run ATI) I don't see it happening easily.

Well I typically don't have to generate a xorg.conf (since hal handles it all), but I was running into problems with the radeon drivers for my card. Maybe that command was all I needed to get x to run.........not sure.

GodofGrunts · 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melcar

I don't know what version of the xserver you're using, but the newest versions don't need a xorg.conf file for configuration. If you generate one with the command you used, all you really need are whatever additional options you want to use/specify that X doesn't load by default, therefore the file can remain rather empty if you want (the one on my laptop only has a few extra power management options for the radeon driver).
As for the situation with Arch, I would think that if enough users "complain" about the situation with fglrx the maintainers will opt to support it again. Given that most of their users run Intel chips (a comparative minority run nvidia last time I bothered to check, and even less run ATI) I don't see it happening easily.

Quote:

Originally Posted by binormalkilla

Well I typically don't have to generate a xorg.conf (since hal handles it all), but I was running into problems with the radeon drivers for my card. Maybe that command was all I needed to get x to run.........not sure.

I don't understand this. I know that the newest Xserver has no need for Xorg.conf because of HAL, but isn't HAL becoming depreciated? Well, according to Ubuntu it is.

Plus, call me old fashion, but I like using Xorg. Will Xorg.conf take precedent over HAL?

binormalkilla · 1 Week Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by GodofGrunts

I don't understand this. I know that the newest Xserver has no need for Xorg.conf because of HAL, but isn't HAL becoming depreciated? Well, according to Ubuntu it is.

Plus, call me old fashion, but I like using Xorg. Will Xorg.conf take precedent over HAL?

Xorg will check for devices specified in xorg.conf. If not found, then it will hand it off to hal. (At least that's how I understand it, I may be wrong.)
Have a look at
/var/log/Xorg.0.log
That may help you understand the way they interact.

GodofGrunts · 1 Week Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by binormalkilla

Xorg will check for devices specified in xorg.conf. If not found, then it will hand it off to hal. (At least that's how I understand it, I may be wrong.)
Have a look at
/var/log/Xorg.0.log
That may help you understand the way they interact.

Hey thanks. I'll check on that when I get home.

binormalkilla · 1 Week Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by GodofGrunts

Hey thanks. I'll check on that when I get home.

No problem.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Software, Programming and Coding > Operating Systems > Linux, Unix
48702 xorg.conf, driver settings in Arch x86_64

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)