Richard Fish <bigfish <at> asmallpond.org> writes:
>
> James wrote:
>
> >ATI Technologies Inc Radeon R250 Lf [FireGL 9000], on a portable.
> >
> >1. Should I switch to ATI OpenGL ? If not what do I loose? Why?
> >
> >
>
> I'm pretty sure you don't need the ATI drivers, the built-in radeon
> driver has 3D acceleration for your card. You only need the ati-drivers
> for R300 or greater.
Well from my xorg.conf:
Driver "radeon"
VideoRam 65536
<snip>
Section "Screen"
Identifier "Screen 1"
Device "Radeon-9000-M9"
Monitor "LCDwxga"
DefaultDepth 24
So since I have a 250 on a 9000, I do not need the
ati-drivers? <meaning I can 'emerge unmerge ati-drivers'>
????
>
> Mostly, if they work, you will lose any kind of software suspend/power
> management support. I have no idea why ATI can't support such a simple
> thing as suspend/resume, when the necessary events have been in the
> kernel for over a year, and every _other_ driver supports it, including
> nvidia...this is the main reason I refuse to run the ATI drivers on my
> mobility 9600.
You mean you refuse to run ATI's drivers or the 'ati-drivers'?
Sorry, I'm not really up on these issues. I just want something
simple. But, a compelling reason to use the ati-drivers and a little
help on the xorg.conf settings and I'll convert.
> You will also lose the ability to use the radeonfb driver for your
> console...the two drivers do not play nice together. You can use either
> text mode or vesafb (slow) for console support.
Well, 'radeonfb does not even show up in my xorg.conf file.
Maybe you could send me an xorg.conf file that uses properly
sets all of these parameters. (I do not know what I'm missing
nor how to set it up and test the differences. I would like to learn.
>
> >3. Is this just another Open Source versus Vendor Closed source
> >binaries pissing_contest or is the ATI OpenGL really
> >beneficial in means of performance/features?
> >
> >
>
> Well, I don't get particularly religious about open-source vs. closed
> source drivers...but the ATI drivers are for me the clearest example of
> why linux drivers should be opensource. If a vendor is going to provide
> closed-source drivers, I expect them to keep them up to date, support
> most features in the current kernel release, and provide some kind of
> support to their users. ATI doesn't seem interested in any of
> these....releases every 2-3 months, with the same issues over and over
> again....no response to email or web forums (checkout rage3d.com)...etc.
>
> <rant>
> That, and their configuration script still asks me whether I want to
> enable middle-mouse-button emulation...I haven't needed that in, oh, 8
> years!! And this is a linux 2.6 kernel....you don't *need* to detect my
> mouse, the kernel already did!! And thats besides asking me what the
> HSync and VSync ranges are for an LCD display connected via DVI which is
> _just_ _plain_ _idiotic_. "X -configure" is sooo much more sane--it
> still misconfigures my mouse, but at least it doesn't ask me stupid
> questions while doing it!
> </rant>
You certainly seem quite knowledgable on these issues. Do have time
for to help me:
configure an xorg.conf file so I can test the benefits of the ati-drivers
and the radeonfb? Then I can decide to use the ati-drivers or not? Earlier
you said my chip could not even benefit from the 'ati-drivers'
If there is benefit or moral(open-source)imperative then I'll use
the ati-drivers. However, if it takes a graphics subsystem expert
lots of effort to effect the proper use of the ati-drivers, then
I should stay with the radeon drivers?
James
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
