On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:18:10 +0200
Bellido Nicolas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 25 July 2005 16:22, Aapo Tahkola wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 08:59:53 +0200
[drm:drm_ioctl] pid=9733, cmd=0x40106450, nr=0x50, dev 0xe200, auth=1
[drm:radeon_cp_cmdbuf] RADEON_CMD_SCALARS2
On Tuesday 26 July 2005 11:06, Jerome Glisse wrote:
In fact, i use xfree86 (from debian testing) for fglrx,
You mean xfree86 4.3.0 + ati.patch from r300 cvs ?
No the original xfree86 from debian with fglrx, and i
have installed elsewhere Xorg with r300 (in fact
my rep /usr/X11R6 is link
On 7/27/05, Bellido Nicolas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 26 July 2005 11:06, Jerome Glisse wrote:
In fact, i use xfree86 (from debian testing) for fglrx,
You mean xfree86 4.3.0 + ati.patch from r300 cvs ?
No the original xfree86 from debian with fglrx, and i
have installed
On 7/27/05, Aapo Tahkola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:37:02 -0700
Nguyen The Toan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need a program called vbetool. This allows one to save and restore the
graphic card state before suspending and after resuming.
I wonder if this could be
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 08:44, Aapo Tahkola wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:18:10 +0200
You dont have two cards hooked up by any chance? :)
No, no handmade mobo with 2 agp slots :)
Does Xorg.0.log get the card right?
Apparently yes, it does.
You probably want to check if microcode_version
I pulled the CVS version of DRI and found that it does not compile
because the kernel version
checks against 2.6.11 all need to be 2.6.10. For example:
CC [M] /home/bscott/wc/cvs/dri/drm/linux-core/drm_agpsupport.o
/home/bscott/wc/cvs/dri/drm/linux-core/drm_agpsupport.c: In function
What controlled version of the DRI sources with VIA support do you
recommend I use
with kernel 2.6.11 on an FC4 distribution?
Barry
---
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow
I have an interesting problem with an HP Pavilion. It's an IGP320M with
a Radeon Mobility. DRI works just fine when using WindowMaker or
gnome. However, when I try to use xfce4 instead, X locks up when the
splash screen would normally be displayed. I can move the mouse around,
but I
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:25:27 +0200
Bellido Nicolas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 08:44, Aapo Tahkola wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:18:10 +0200
You dont have two cards hooked up by any chance? :)
No, no handmade mobo with 2 agp slots :)
Does Xorg.0.log get the
On 7/27/05, Barry Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What controlled version of the DRI sources with VIA support do you
recommend I use
with kernel 2.6.11 on an FC4 distribution?
Barry
I think you'll have to use xorg/mesa cvs for DRI support:
http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/Building
or:
Alex Deucher wrote:
On 7/27/05, Barry Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What controlled version of the DRI sources with VIA support do you
recommend I use
with kernel 2.6.11 on an FC4 distribution?
Barry
I think you'll have to use xorg/mesa cvs for DRI support:
Hello. I found a reason why ATI nor NVIDIA provides us hardware
details:
http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/3dmark03_audit_report.pdf
Regarding ATI: This performance drop is almost entirely due to 8.2%
difference in the game test 4 result, which means that the test was
also detected and
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 19:04, Aapo Tahkola wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:25:27 +0200
Bellido Nicolas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 08:44, Aapo Tahkola wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:18:10 +0200
You dont have two cards hooked up by any chance? :)
No, no
This patch fixes the following warnings:
-- snip --
...
CC drivers/char/drm/drm_pci.o
drivers/char/drm/drm_pci.c:53:5: warning: DRM_DEBUG_MEMORY is not defined
drivers/char/drm/drm_pci.c:84:5: warning: DRM_DEBUG_MEMORY is not defined
drivers/char/drm/drm_pci.c:119:5: warning:
Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
Hello. I found a reason why ATI nor NVIDIA provides us hardware
details:
http://www.futuremark.com/companyinfo/3dmark03_audit_report.pdf
Regarding ATI: This performance drop is almost entirely due to 8.2%
difference in the game test 4 result, which means that the test
Alan Grimes wrote:
Software rendering: WORKS (about 1.2 fps, if that..)
ATI Mach 64 (PCI): WORKS -- minor image degradation as would be
expected of a card of that vintage... (around 5 fps...)
ATI Rage 128: Works, slows down dramaticly in some areas, has a number
of visual artifacts.
Patrick McFarland wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 02:43 pm, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
Please continue developing reverse-engineered, open sourced drivers.
As time permits...
Heh, the only thing I want is GL ARB fragment shaders accelerated as much as
possible
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 03:18 pm, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
Patrick McFarland wrote:
Heh, the only thing I want is GL ARB fragment shaders accelerated as much
as possible by R200 hardware. I don't see that happening with ATI's
binary drivers, they only support the old ATI pre-ARB fragment
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 10:13, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On 7/27/05, Bellido Nicolas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, do you have any scenario where you are sure X will hang ??
Launch ut2003 or 2004 (don't remember which one) demos then start a game
(quick launch) and it will lockup during level
On 7/27/05, Bellido Nicolas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 10:13, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On 7/27/05, Bellido Nicolas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, do you have any scenario where you are sure X will hang ??
Launch ut2003 or 2004 (don't remember which one) demos then
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 21:53:14 +0200
Bellido Nicolas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 19:04, Aapo Tahkola wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:25:27 +0200
Bellido Nicolas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 08:44, Aapo Tahkola wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:38:57 +0200
Bellido Nicolas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 10:13, Jerome Glisse wrote:
On 7/27/05, Bellido Nicolas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, do you have any scenario where you are sure X will hang ??
Launch ut2003 or 2004 (don't remember
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick McFarland wrote:
Even if we violate precision/range stuff, being able to accelerate simplistic
shaders would be quite useful. Its better than not having a software
implementation of the shader pipeline.
The problem is that most shaders
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 04:54 pm, Ian Romanick wrote:
Patrick McFarland wrote:
Even if we violate precision/range stuff, being able to accelerate
simplistic shaders would be quite useful. Its better than not having a
software implementation of the shader pipeline.
The problem is that
Patrick McFarland wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 04:54 pm, Ian Romanick wrote:
Patrick McFarland wrote:
Even if we violate precision/range stuff, being able to accelerate
simplistic shaders would be quite useful. Its better than not having a
software implementation of the shader pipeline.
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 01:57:56 +0200
Roland Scheidegger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Skeggs wrote:
S3TC does seem to be the killer for UT2004. I started porting over the
S3TC stuff from the r200 driver a while
back, but haven't had a lot of time recently to fix a couple of issues
with it.
Aapo Tahkola wrote:
That's true, but to avoid the huge drops you could also just decrease
texture detail. Or implement the second texture heap in main memory and
use gart texturing (though you'd also need to manually increase the gart
size). There are some problems with that for r200, and the
So why can Doom 3 use R200 pixel shaders, and DRI can't?
And we currently don't implement the two extensions on r200 that Doom3
uses, I've still got a 90% finished ATI_fragment_shader done but I've
little time to pick it back up, and the only test code I had was doom3 and
unfortunately when I
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 06:16 pm, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 18:05, Patrick McFarland wrote:
So why can Doom 3 use R200 pixel shaders, and DRI can't?
Doom3's r200 shader pipeline gives different (read: worse) output than
their arb shader pipeline. They have the liberty
I spent all day dl'ing and installing:
#
This is a pre-release version of the The X.Org Foundation X11.
X Window System Version 6.8.99.1
#
And my reward for spending $40 on a card that appeared to be supported
by Linux?
###
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/Croquet0.3 $ ppracer
On Thursday 28 July 2005 01:09, Alan Grimes wrote:
I spent all day dl'ing and installing:
#
This is a pre-release version of the The X.Org Foundation X11.
X Window System Version 6.8.99.1
#
And my reward for spending $40 on a card that appeared to be supported
by Linux?
Why you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick McFarland wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 06:16 pm, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 18:05, Patrick McFarland wrote:
So why can Doom 3 use R200 pixel shaders, and DRI can't?
Doom3's r200 shader pipeline gives different
32 matches
Mail list logo
