ati mach64 - DRI - heretic2 & tuxracer - X

This is a discussion on ati mach64 - DRI - heretic2 & tuxracer - X ; Both heretic2 and tuxracer need 3D hardware acceleration to function correctly. I run linux 2.6.23 & Xorg 7.1.1. on an old PIII laptop with an ati mach64. Any way I could enable DRI on this system?...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: ati mach64 - DRI - heretic2 & tuxracer

  1. ati mach64 - DRI - heretic2 & tuxracer

    Both heretic2 and tuxracer need 3D hardware acceleration to function
    correctly.

    I run linux 2.6.23 & Xorg 7.1.1. on an old PIII laptop with an ati
    mach64.

    Any way I could enable DRI on this system?

  2. Re: ati mach64 - DRI - heretic2 & tuxracer

    On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 04:07:36 +0000, cga2000 wrote:

    > Both heretic2 and tuxracer need 3D hardware acceleration to function
    > correctly.
    >
    > I run linux 2.6.23 & Xorg 7.1.1. on an old PIII laptop with an ati
    > mach64.
    >
    > Any way I could enable DRI on this system?


    My old laptop was a PIII 800MHz that had an ATI mach64 driver. And ran
    tuxracer. Even bzflag with most extras turned off. Armagetron with most
    detail turned off. As long as you run things at 800x600 and 16 bit
    colors. ATI rage mobility M1 iirc. The driver was merged with Xorg, and
    requires most of the acceleration in mesa (software). Nothing to write
    home about, but usable.

  3. Re: ati mach64 - DRI - heretic2 & tuxracer

    Shadow_7 wrote:
    > On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 04:07:36 +0000, cga2000 wrote:
    >
    >> Both heretic2 and tuxracer need 3D hardware acceleration to function
    >> correctly.
    >>
    >> I run linux 2.6.23 & Xorg 7.1.1. on an old PIII laptop with an ati
    >> mach64.
    >>
    >> Any way I could enable DRI on this system?

    >
    > My old laptop was a PIII 800MHz that had an ATI mach64 driver. And ran
    > tuxracer. Even bzflag with most extras turned off. Armagetron with most
    > detail turned off. As long as you run things at 800x600 and 16 bit
    > colors. ATI rage mobility M1 iirc. The driver was merged with Xorg, and
    > requires most of the acceleration in mesa (software). Nothing to write
    > home about, but usable.


    ATI's mach64 does not have hardware 3D capabilities.
    You can activate DRI, which means you'll have 2D accel, but 3D will be
    done through MESA.

  4. Re: ati mach64 - DRI - heretic2 & tuxracer

    Jurgen Haan a écrit :
    > ATI's mach64 does not have hardware 3D capabilities.
    > You can activate DRI, which means you'll have 2D accel, but 3D will be
    > done through MESA.


    not true : http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/ATIMach64

  5. Re: ati mach64 - DRI - heretic2 & tuxracer

    YBM wrote:
    > Jurgen Haan a écrit :
    >> ATI's mach64 does not have hardware 3D capabilities.
    >> You can activate DRI, which means you'll have 2D accel, but 3D will be
    >> done through MESA.

    >
    > not true : http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/ATIMach64


    I've wrestling with this for a while. AFAIK you need the mach64 kernel module loaded
    before you can activate/load the ati driver and DRI for full 3D acceleration. Even
    with the newest kernel, I still get "mach64 module missing" in the X.org logs. The
    link above hits everything was finally rolled into the newest Xorg and kerne,but I
    haven't been able to get it working.

  6. Re: ati mach64 - DRI - heretic2 & tuxracer

    >> not true : http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/ATIMach64
    >
    > I've wrestling with this for a while. AFAIK you need the mach64 kernel
    > module loaded before you can activate/load the ati driver and DRI for
    > full 3D acceleration.


    You will never get "full" acceleration(what card/driver does?). But
    it'll be noticeably faster than having "no" acceleration.

    http://www.retinalburn.net/linux/

    I don't know how up to date it is, but it helped me way back when I had
    an ATI Mach64 laptop.

    Don't forget this in your xorg.conf (or XF86Config(-4)):

    Section "DRI"
    Group "video"
    Mode 0660
    EndSection

    So that "root" AND "users in the video group" have access to
    acceleration. 0666 if you want everyone to have access. Not quite sure
    why my current semi-up to date xorg and fglrx driver required me to make
    that 0666 adjustment myself. 0660 has worked for me for years, "until
    now".

    At least I'm back in 1280x800 mode. After manually moving/deleting
    various remnants from other versions. Fortunately the date/time stamp
    put those in 2006 where all of the new ones were Dec 2007. Even some /
    etc/fglr* and friends laying about screwing with things. Debian might be
    easier to maintain in the long run, but ATI is NOT. Mom's birthday is
    coming up and I'm looking at an nVidia 8800 GT. Fewest headaches so far,
    even if I do have to start X with "startx -- -ignoreABI".

  7. Re: ati mach64 - DRI - heretic2 & tuxracer

    On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:59:05 +0000, Shadow_7 wrote:

    >>> not true : http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/ATIMach64

    >>
    >> I've wrestling with this for a while. AFAIK you need the mach64 kernel
    >> module loaded before you can activate/load the ati driver and DRI for
    >> full 3D acceleration.

    >
    > You will never get "full" acceleration(what card/driver does?). But
    > it'll be noticeably faster than having "no" acceleration.


    Maybe "full" was tooo strong...I'll settle for "some" ;-)

    > http://www.retinalburn.net/linux/
    >
    > I don't know how up to date it is, but it helped me way back when I had
    > an ATI Mach64 laptop.


    A useful but antique reference I also found a while back. Supposedly the
    code was rolled into X.org recently but they disabled DRI in the newer
    code release for some sort of security issue which some sites (such as
    DRI) claim to be resolved in 2007. But, for some odd reason I can't find
    the mach64 kernel module even though its enabled in the latest kernel.

    > Don't forget this in your xorg.conf (or XF86Config(-4)):
    >
    > Section "DRI"
    > Group "video"
    > Mode 0660
    > EndSection
    >
    > So that "root" AND "users in the video group" have access to
    > acceleration. 0666 if you want everyone to have access. Not quite sure
    > why my current semi-up to date xorg and fglrx driver required me to make
    > that 0666 adjustment myself. 0660 has worked for me for years, "until
    > now".
    >


    well, fglrx can be a bit cranky...


    > At least I'm back in 1280x800 mode. After manually moving/deleting
    > various remnants from other versions. Fortunately the date/time stamp
    > put those in 2006 where all of the new ones were Dec 2007. Even some /
    > etc/fglr* and friends laying about screwing with things. Debian might
    > be easier to maintain in the long run, but ATI is NOT. Mom's birthday
    > is coming up and I'm looking at an nVidia 8800 GT. Fewest headaches so
    > far, even if I do have to start X with "startx -- -ignoreABI".


    Actually, you shouldn't need -ignoreABI with the newer nvidia drivers and
    Xorg 7, at least since driver version 76.x or 77.x (can't remember which).

    --
    "The people should not be afraid of their government - the government
    should be afraid of it's people"

  8. Re: ati mach64 - DRI - heretic2 & tuxracer

    > Actually, you shouldn't need -ignoreABI with the newer nvidia drivers
    > and Xorg 7, at least since driver version 76.x or 77.x (can't remember
    > which).


    I've been a little lagging in updates. Being on dialup kind of makes
    that a consistency hard to overcome. X is up to date as of the past
    thirty days anyway. But my nVidia driver is a little older, but less
    than six months old.

    The mach64 always had security issues. I'm not sure if that ever got
    resolved. Most of it's functionality is in the mesa drivers anyway. I'm
    not sure of the kernel module these days. I no longer own that machine.
    But I had to use the build process supplied by dri. Which got merged
    with X afaik these days. And no longer got distributed in that manner
    since April-ish a year or three or more back. I do remember something
    about making drm a module to be able to use it. Or something like that.
    Perhaps that's just for my fglrx module. It was just one of those issues
    I had to overcome, as I roll my own custom kernel builds.

+ Reply to Thread