Puppy 2.12: 3D-Control-Center V2.00

[tempestuous]

mach64 is a problem. Even after compiling the kernel module, the 2D mach64 drivers (ati_drv.o & atimisc_drv.o) have their DRI plugin code disabled for security reasons ... well this was the case with Xorg 6.8.1 & 6.8.2. This can be fixed, but it involves a complete recompile of Xorg7 with the configuration file modified.

[MU]

I tried to compile this older Kernel-module this morning.
http://dri.freedesktop.org/snapshots/ma ... 86.tar.bz2

Got an error, and commented a function for tests in drm/linux-core/ati_pcigart.c

86-89

Code: Select all

//	for (i = 0; i < ATI_PCIGART_TABLE_PAGES; i++, page++) {
//		__put_page(page);
//		ClearPageReserved(page);
//	}

Then it compiled, but a modprobe mach64 results in:
FATAL: Error inserting mach64 (/lib/modules/2.6.18.1/kernel/drivers/char/drm/mach64.ko): Unknown symbol in module, or unknown parameter (see dmesg)


No idea

Mark

[Pizzasgood]

Okay, the ATI driver is working for me now. Thanks

Now I can go put it to use...

[MU]

message from tempestous:
---------
Mark,
You're right, the mach64 DRM source from http://dri.freedesktop.org/snapshots/ will not compile, but I just downloaded the latest DRM source using git, and this compiles the mach64 module OK.
So I have just uploaded the mach64 module to you.
When I ran this build command -

make DRM_MODULES="mach64"

the drm.ko module also compiled. It might be important that this version goes with the mach64 module, so I sent you both.

Regarding the 2D mach64 driver: I'm not sure what configuration options were used in Puppy's Xorg7.0, but I just downloaded the Xorg7.0 source and its default configuration (xorg.cf) has the mach64 DRI option disabled. Line 252 has this -

#define BuildDevelDRIDrivers NO

The "DevelDRIDrivers" are ffb mach64 and unichrome
So I have changed this line to "YES" and I will send you the new mach64 2D driver hopefully in a day or 2.
-----------
Kernelmodule:
http://dotpups.de/tests/mach64-DRM-k2.6.18.1.tar.gz

[tempestuous]

Roger, I suggest you try this new mach64 kernel module. Uncompress the package from your uppermost directory, then run "depmod". Your xorg.conf needs to contain - Load "dri"
Now restart X. Check that "lsmod" lists the mach64 module. If not, load it manually then restart X again.
If 3D still doesn't work, it means that the standard mach64 (ati) 2D Xorg7.0 driver is not DRI-aware. I am trying to compile a revised 2D driver at the moment.

[tempestuous]

Roger, can we assume that 3D did not work with Puppy's standard 2D drivers?
Here is the revised 2D driver package - http://dotpups.de/tests/ati-mach64-Xorg7.0.tar.gz
It was compiled with the configuration option "#define BuildDevelDRIDrivers YES"
Uncompress it from your uppermost directory. It will overwrite the existing Xorg drivers in Puppy. Restart X.
Let us know if it works.

[Roger]

Hi,

here's what dmesg

drm: no version for "struct_module" found: kernel tainted.
[drm] Initialized drm 1.1.0 20060810
ACPI: PCI Interrupt 0000:01:00.0[A] -> Link [C090] -> GSI 11 (level, low) -> IRQ 11
[drm] Initialized mach64 2.0.0 20060718 on minor 0:
[drm:mach64_dma_init] *ERROR* mach64_dma_init called without lock held, held 0 owner 00000000 c8a95820
[drm:drm_unlock] *ERROR* Process 8263 using kernel context 0


and xorg log tell me:

(II) ATI(0): [drm] SAREA 2200+1208: 3408
drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device or address)
drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device or address)
drmOpenDevice: Open failed
drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device or address)
drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device or address)
drmOpenDevice: Open failed
drmOpenByBusid: Searching for BusID pci:0000:01:00.0
drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
drmOpenDevice: open result is 7, (OK)
drmOpenByBusid: drmOpenMinor returns 7
drmOpenByBusid: drmGetBusid reports pci:0000:01:00.0
(II) ATI(0): [drm] loaded kernel module for "mach64" driver
(II) ATI(0): [drm] DRM interface version 1.3
(II) ATI(0): [drm] created "mach64" driver at busid "pci:0000:01:00.0"
(II) ATI(0): [drm] added 8192 byte SAREA at 0xd08ca000
(II) ATI(0): [drm] mapped SAREA 0xd08ca000 to 0xb701e000
(II) ATI(0): [drm] framebuffer handle = 0x40000000
(II) ATI(0): [drm] added 1 reserved context for kernel
(EE) ATI(0): [dri] ATIDRIScreenInit failed because of a version mismatch.
[dri] mach64.o kernel module version is 2.0.0, but version 1.0 or greater is needed.
[dri] Disabling DRI.
(II) ATI(0): [drm] removed 1 reserved context for kernel
(II) ATI(0): [drm] unmapping 8192 bytes of SAREA 0xd08ca000 at 0xb701e000

Something wrong with the module (drm & mach64 are loaded) or the version recognition!?!

[tempestuous]

drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device or address)

This device should be created by the 3D DRI driver ... I can suggest a fix, but first run "lsmod" to check that all necessary kernel modules are loaded:

agpgart
intel-agp ## or whatever AGP module your motherboard requires (ali-agp / amd-k7-agp etc)
drm
mach64

All OK, but dmesg/Xorg.0.log still returns errors? Your last resort is to create that device node manually, like this -

mkdir /dev/dri
mknod /dev/dri/card0 c 226 0

[MU]

my ATI-radeon fglrx-driver enters hundrets of such lines in Xorg.0.log, but works, so this might be ignored.

Mark

Line 674 to 1957

drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
drmOpenDevice: open result is 7, (OK)
drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
drmOpenDevice: open result is 7, (OK)
drmOpenByBusid: Searching for BusID PCI:1:0:0
drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
drmOpenDevice: open result is 7, (OK)
drmOpenByBusid: drmOpenMinor returns 7
drmOpenByBusid: drmGetBusid reports
drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card1
drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device)
drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device)
drmOpenDevice: Open failed
drmOpenByBusid: drmOpenMinor returns -1023
drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card2
drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device)
drmOpenDevice: open result is -1, (No such device)
drmOpenDevice: Open failed

[Roger]

Hi,

the modules
agpgart
intel-agp
drm
mach64

are loaded.

/dev/dri/card0 exists - it is created acoording to the xorg log (after 2 unsuccessful attempts before)
drmOpenByBusid: Searching for BusID pci:0000:01:00.0
drmOpenDevice: node name is /dev/dri/card0
drmOpenDevice: open result is 7, (OK)
drmOpenByBusid: drmOpenMinor returns 7
drmOpenByBusid: drmGetBusid reports pci:0000:01:00.0

It seems to me that DRI is not recognising the module correctly
(EE) ATI(0): [dri] ATIDRIScreenInit failed because of a version mismatch.
[dri] mach64.o kernel module version is 2.0.0, but version 1.0 or greater is needed.
[dri] Disabling DRI.

DRI probably does not like version 2.0.0 ... ??

[tempestuous]

It's difficult to know which component is at fault; the 2D driver, 3D driver, DRM module, or libGL.
But I have a suspicion that a newer version of libGL is necessary, to be compatible with the mach64 DRM module, which is the very latest. I will investigate further.

[tempestuous]

Attached are the latest mach64-DRI driver, and openGL(Mesa)+libdrm. The CVS source code is the same as the mach64 kernel module was compiled from, so should be compatible.
The older opengl and DRI files in Puppy will be overwritten.

EDIT: mach64-DRI.tar.gz and opengl-CVS.tar.gz removed. See later post.

[Roger]

Thanks. Looks like it's getting messy again.
dmesg & Xorg.0.log show exactly the same errors as before.
I'm not sure if some of the previous modules or links or whatever should have been removed...?? Can I check somehow that the right modules/libs are used?
antinspect from MU's 3DCC package now refuses to work (it did before ... slowly)
/usr/local/3DCC/resource/antinspect: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/libGL.so.1: undefined symbol: drmOpenOnce

[tempestuous]

Thanks. Looks like it's getting messy again.

Yes. It might be a good idea to delete your pup_212.sfs file and start again.
To avoid confusion, the bits you need are -

mach64-DRM-k2.6.18.1 (kernel module)
ati-mach64-Xorg7.0 (DRI-enabled 2D driver)
mach64-DRI (3D DRI driver)
opengl-CVS+libdrm

Can I check somehow that the right modules/libs are used?

There was some risk of conflicting libraries because you originally installed "OpenGL" from Mark's 3D-Control-Center, but if you start again with a fresh pup_212.sfs file, that problem is gone.
I think Mark's wizard provides the pupget verison of OpenGL ... and there are some other potentially conflicting files in it - at http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/DriTroubleshooting I read this "make sure you don't have any parts of the nvidia binary driver installed, particularly libglx.so*"
The pupget OpenGL package contains some nvidia-looking files in /usr/X11R7/lib/xorg/modules/extensions/

Some other troubleshooting possibilities with xorg.conf:
in Section "Screen" set DefaultDepth 16, and limit the resolution to 800x600

in Section "Module" as well as Load "dri" and Load "glx" try -
Load "drm"

in Section "Device" try -
Options "ForcePCIMode" "YES"

[tempestuous]

Roger, if no success, I suspect that the 3D components are not playing well with Xorg 7.0.

Xorg 6.8.1 was carried over from Puppy 1.0.9 to early Puppy 2.x versions ...
so I have packaged the mach64 3D files suitable for Puppy 2.01 and posted them here - http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=83603
I also removed the earlier Puppy 1.x mach64 3D files and posted them in the same thread.

[withasong]

I got here from a link posted by tempestuous in the 85582 forum topic.

Tempestuous suggested I download the 3DCC instead of attempting to install the ATI proprietary drivers, which is what I'm trying to do.

I installed 3DCC, followed the first 2 steps outlined in the comment area successfully, but when I went to the 3rd step to install the DRI-Graficscard-Drivers, I get a file integrity error as a result of a failed download. I notice the download window (which closes rather quickly) says 404 error - file not found for the DRI-_dri.so.pup file.

I did a search for this file within the forum, but the search yielded no results.

[stargazer]

edit

[withasong]

Thanks stargazer for your response about the missing DRI download within 3DCC.

On my 9500, I first did install the DRI-radeon_dri.so.pup file and reboot as you suggested. The 3D demo still reports that DRI is not active and I get a frame rate of 14.29. MPlayer has a blank, black screen while the sound plays fine for all types of videos, and both MPlayer and gXine have the same response to DVDs (i.e., nothing on the screen but sound plays fine).

Then, also with my 9500, I noticed the Ati-8.28.8.pup file at the dotpups download site and figured I had nothing to lose since I was not in a winning position at the moment, so I downloaded it too, installed it and then rebooted and got different results. The 3D demo still reports that DRI is not active and I still get a frame rate of 14.29, but now MPlayer will play NO videos of any type at all (it just reports "Error opening/initializing video out (-vo) device" and it stops) uniformly for all avi's, mpg's, and DVDs, BUT gXine now plays DVDs with a grainy video picture with highly fractured movements. Progress for sure, but not positive!

Since I have 3 ATI Radeon cards (an 8500, 9500 and a 9600, each on a different computer), I have some questions about 3DCC and the two files I listed above (I've only tried to install the above files on the one computer that has the 9500 card, since it's the most troubled, but I want to get video working well on the other 2 computers too with Puppy):

1. Should I install only one of the above files (if yes, which one)?

2, Should I install both files (If yes, should one be before the other?...if yes, which one first)? Also, when the program which is installed second asks about overwriting files which the first put in place, I assume I answer "yes" -- correct?

3. Should nothing be installed from the DRI component of 3DCC then, if I do #1 or #2 above (that's, of course, if I get something more than a 404 error in the future with 3DCC's DRI component)? In other words, is the DRI-radeon_dri.so.pup equivalent to, and a replacement for, the 3DCC-based DRI-_dri.so.pup file, or should both types of DRI-files be installed to make things work properly?

4. Should I ignore the "DRI not active" message that continues to be reported after I install (and reboot) the DRI-radeon_dri.so.pup file and also the Ati-8.28.8.pup file (like so many in this thread have reported)? In other words, is this actually NOT an important message?

5. Should frame rates be so low? The 9500 ATI Radeon Pro that I have with 128 MB is far more capable than 14.29 FPS if it is properly accelerated, so I don't have something right here I'm sure (but I don't know what yet).

BTW, my 8500 and 9600 on my other 2 computers with Puppy 2.12 work moderately well with both MPlayer and gXine (I play avi's, mpg's, DVDs, etc., with viewable picture and sound), but I've still got the fractured-flickers thing whenever there's much video movement in both programs, but for some reason, the 8500 and 9600 don't have the fully blank, black video screen in MPlayer for all video types that the 9500-based computer has (which is a puzzle, since I set up all 3 computers with the same video parameters in Puppy)!

I hope I can get some useful feedback about questions 1 through 4 above to help me resolve question 5 and finally obtain a competitive result to what I have in Windows (which is full-motion videos of all types with no fractured movements or hesitations on all 3 computers, including, on the 9500 & 9600, full-motion 3D games with wonderful, fluid fog). We just have to get the right combination of things in Linux to bring forth what's there in the hardware already (just eagerly waiting to come out)!

[Gn2]

Should frame rates be so low? ~ 9500 ATI Radeon Pro ~ 14.29 FPS

Results from Non-customised Nvidia 128MB DDR -W/8762 driver ) =

$ glxgears
26874 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5374.800 FPS
28765 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5753.000 FPS
28613 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5722.600 FPS
28750 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5750.000 FPS
28702 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5740.400 FPS
28447 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5689.400 FPS
28626 frames in 5.0 seconds = 5725.200 FPS

DRI = Direct Rendering Infrastructure
Mesa was used in lieu of proprietary drive support
(NOT for Nividia chipset use)

http://www.mesa3d.org/faq.html

Please use these resources:

http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/DriTroubleshooting

http://www2.ati.com/drivers/linux/linux_3.14.6.html

The X-server configuration is in /etc/X11/xorg.conf

Error logs are found in /var/log/ (Xorg._xx_logs)
NOT in /tmp -that folder MAY contain some Msg's - but is not the Linux default placement

If still problems , please paste in any errors & present xorg.conf file content

[MU]

Ati related issues

I just downloaded and installed again:
http://dotpups.de/3DCC/2.12/3DCC.pup

Clicked on: DRI-Graficscarddrivers -> Ati-fglrx-8.28.8 -> install

The Ati-dotpup is downloaded and installed.
So I don't understand, why it will not download for you

You can try this however:
save this dotpup:
http://dotpups.de/3DCC/2.12/Ati-8.28.8.pup
in the folder:
/root/dotpups-downloads

Then in 3DCC click again on
DRI-Graficscarddrivers -> Ati-fglrx-8.28.8 -> install

Now the downloadwindow opens again very shortly, but will not download again, as the pup is already there.
It then continues to install this dotpup and does some final configuration-steps.

It is not sufficient to install the dotpup "manually" (from Rox), as then you still would have a xorg.conf, that does not match this driver.
So please try it the way I desrcibed.

#########################
Concerning the other, "radeon"-drivers:
radeon:
Very old Ati-Radeon cards, like the 7000 series
r200:
Radeon chipsets R200/rv250/rv280 (models 8500-9250)
r300:
New Ati graficscards (model 9500 up)

Those drivers are more stable than the Ati-fglrx-8.28, in general I'd suggest to use those.
Only games like Doom3 or Quake4 will not work, as they need some OpenGL-specific features not included. But most other games run fine.
Even with the Ati-fglrx-drivers, Doom3/Quake4 crash with Kernel 2.6 (at least on my Radeon 7000 and 9250), so I personally still use a old Puppy 1.0.8 (Kernel 2.4) to play those games.

Short:
Ati fglrx: usually not recommended driver, only in seldom cases.
Radeon/r200/r300: recommended driver

###############################
Video acceleration:
In mplayer, choose another "video-out" in the options (right click in mplayer).
For the Ati-fglrx driver, use OpenGL.
For the "radeon/rxx" drivers, use "xv".

Mark