Difference between revisions of "Talk:ATI"

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (removing from talk page, this is related to kernel module, not xorg, and this page isn't for support)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Disabling HDMI audio ==
HDMI audio does not get disabled with neither
radeon.audio=0 in kernel parameters nor
options radeon audio=0 in /etc/modprobe.d
after upgrade to
extra/xorg-server        1.17.1-7 -> 1.17.2-1
extra/xorg-server-devel  1.17.1-7 -> 1.17.2-1
extra/xorg-server-common 1.17.1-7 -> 1.17.2-1
[[User:Tsester|Tsester]] ([[User talk:Tsester|talk]]) 12:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
== Move ==
== Move ==

Revision as of 22:14, 9 January 2016


So this page now covers xf86-video-ati and xf86-video-amdgpu. As I understand they are closely related and share quite some code, so it makes sense to keep them on the same page.

The name of the page doesn't seem appropriate anymore however. I am thinking something like "AMD graphics", like Intel graphics, although that might not make clear that this is about the open source driver. On the other hand, AMD graphics (open-source) or AMD open-source graphics might be too long.

What do other people think? Should we move the page? What should be the new name? Thanks. Lonaowna (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

How much differences are between kernel/module parameters, etc.?
Don't forget troubleshooting, debugging, tools, etc. may differ.
I like the name AMD graphics, and I would prefer this for the ('official') AMD driver.
A separate page would be something I prefer, but if they are '80/90%' the same, it may be more clear to keep using this page.
Beta990 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not really sure about the differences to be honest, it might well be that there is quite a lot of difference. There is a lot of information on Phoronix, but a lot is still unclear to me. It would be nice to get some input from someone who has some more experience with it.
"AMD graphics" indeed is too ambiguous to use for the open-source driver. If we decide to split off the AMDGPU stuff, we can just keep this at ATI and the new page at AMDGPU, I think.
Lonaowna (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Although Phoronix daily publish articles about the new driver, it would be better to have a more 'reliable' source.
Maybe we need to wait for users upgrading their cards and also give (the) AMD (module) a bit more time to develop.
See my other question about the architect/GPU's that need or could upgrade.
Is it supposed to replace the xf86-video-ati driver?
Beta990 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding xf86-video-amdgpu

I would like to know what cards should use xf86-video-amdgpu instead of xf86-video-ati; if I understand correctly it is possible (some) older cards are also compatible with this driver. Is there an official status page (like if DPM works, what is supported, etc.)?


Beta990 (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The feature matrix says only "Volcanic Islands" GPUs are supported, I believe that that is the codename for Graphics Core Next (GCN) 1.2. You can find all cards that are based on GCN 1.2 at Wikipedia:List of AMD graphics processing units. The feature matrix also lists what features are supported.
I am not sure about older cards, but I think this is as "official" as it's going to get. Lonaowna (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. :)
I've read a few reports of users that the driver works on older GCN's, but this should need more testing.
How much stable and complete is the new driver? I think we need more info before adding a new wiki page.
Beta990 (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)