On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Alan Coopersmith <Alan.Coopersmith at sun.com> wrote: > ajuckel at gmail.com wrote: >> On Feb 2, 2009 5:16pm, Alan Coopersmith <Alan.Coopersmith at sun.com> wrote: >>> Yi wrote: >>> >>> > I have a ATI mobility radeon X1300 card on my laptop and wonder if >> 2d and 3d acceleration works with the current version of Opensolaris. >> Thanks! >>> >>> >>> >>> 2D display should work, but 3D acceleration should not. >>> >> >> Is 2d acceleration now expected to work? I was under the impression that >> 2d display worked, but there was no hardware acceleration yet. > > Sorry - I don't know that level of detail. We ship the Xorg modules for > radeon & radeonhd to do the 2D support, but there is no DRI module needed > for 3D acceleration.
In an external community effort it may soon it will be upgraded from the almost two year old version (of the radeon drm module, which is still in OS/Net) ) to current git. That is at least what I am working on since yesterday. My second (and now primary) Amilo Laptop is not Intel- but AMD based and has a modern Radeon-HD chipset inside ... Hence I have a very similar situation here. Server 1.5.3 with Ati 6.10 adds 2D-support, so it is now possible to no longer depend on falling-back to Vesa anymore. For 2D currently I can either choose "radeon" or "radeonhd" as ddx module in xorg.conf. "radeonhd" gives higher resolutions, but the screen is unsharp (I cannot even describe that problem in my native language). It is like the problem which my right eye has: Two images are not 100% over each other (synchronised) but instead one image is here and the second is 0.7 millimeters apart (like an annoying shadow). Because of this I switched back to "radeon" which only supports 1024x768 on my chip, but which is clear and sharp (while radeonhd has offered me a resolution that my 1280x1024 TFT monitor is not even certified for, but which works well, except for the general radeonhd-unsharpness: circa 1600 x 1400 or something). I have no clue if this unshrpness/shadow of the radeonhd 2D ddx module is a known problem. But I find it odd enough that two drivers are being maintained at the same time to support (at least some of) the same chips: xf86-video-ati (which includes "radeon" and others) versus xf86-video-radeonhd. %martin > I believe that means some, but not all, 2D acceleration > is available, but you'd need someone who knows the driver to tell you > exactly how much is there & missing. > > -- > -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com > Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering
