12.04 update breaks video

rikona rikona at sonic.net
Sun May 3 17:13:19 UTC 2015


Hello Petter,

Sunday, May 3, 2015, 12:08:15 AM, Petter wrote:

> On Sat, 2 May 2015 10:14:41 -0700
> rikona <rikona at sonic.net> wrote:

>> On Sat, 2 May 2015 09:55:02 +0200
>> Petter Adsen <petter at synth.no> wrote:
>> 
>> > On Fri, 1 May 2015 12:44:15 -0700
>> > rikona <rikona at sonic.net> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > On Fri, 1 May 2015 14:02:40 +0200
>> > > Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > What graphics card? What driver for it? 
>> > > 
>> > > AMD A4-5300 APU with Radeon(tm) HD Graphics × 2
>> > > 
>> > > driver: ESA: DVST
>> > > 
>> > > FGLRX 3D-accelerated proprietary graphics driver for ATI cards.
>> > > --- activated but not currently in use
>> > 
>> > What does this last line mean? 
>> The last 2 lines were from looking at "additional drivers" for the
>> system. It seems to say FGLRX is not being used.

> It was certainly not a clear way of describing the situation. That
> should be changed in some way.

I would agree with that!

>> > What does your /var/log/Xorg.0.log say
>> > about your driver? There will be two lines like this:
>> > 
>> > [104101.617] (II) LoadModule: "radeon"
>> > [104101.617] (II)
>> > Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/radeon_drv.so
>> > 
>> > Except that yours might say "fglrx" instead of "radeon".
>> 
>> I've got:
>> [    19.315] (II) LoadModule: "radeon"
>> [    19.315] (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/radeon_drv.so
>> + many other radeon lines
>> 
>> also have:
>> [    19.290] (II) LoadModule: "fglrx"
>> [    19.290] (II)
>> Loading /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/xorg/extra-modules/modules/drivers/fglrx_drv.so
>> 
>> and:
>> [    19.315] (II) LoadModule: "vesa"
>> [    19.316] (II) Loading /usr/lib/xorg/modules/drivers/vesa_drv.so
>> which, from "driver" seems to be what is being used
>> 
>> How do I tell which is REALLY being used?

> Yes, those are normal. It is X probing for present drivers. After the
> probin, I get this:

> [104101.618] (II) RADEON: Driver for ATI Radeon chipsets:
>         ATI Radeon Mobility X600 (M24) 3150 (PCIE), ATI FireMV 2400
>         (PCI), ATI Radeon Mobility X300 (M24) 3152 (PCIE),

> ...and so on. Then a little more stuff, and:

> [104101.622] (II) RADEON(0): Creating default Display subsection in
>               Screen sect$ "Default Screen Section" for depth/fbbpp
>               24/32
> [104101.622] (==) RADEON(0): Depth 24, (--) framebuffer bpp 32
> [104101.622] (II) RADEON(0): Pixel depth = 24 bits stored in 4 bytes (32 bpp pi$
> [104101.622] (==) RADEON(0): Default visual is TrueColor
> [104101.622] (==) RADEON(0): RGB weight 888 [104101.622]
>              (II) RADEON(0): Using 8 bits per RGB (8 bit DAC)

> The "RADEON" in capitals designates the driver. In your case this
> should be "FGLRX", I believe.

Yes - I have essentially the same lines with fglrx [lower case]
instead of RADEON

>> > You can also check your "lsmod" output to see which module is
>> > loaded.
>> 
>> Gives me:
>> vesafb                 13846  1 
>> and:
>> fglrx                8080630  1564 
>> amd_iommu_v2           19228  1 fglrx

> You are using fglrx. Good to know :)

>> Thanks for the info re how to look deeper into the system - that's
>> what I was hoping to find out. But, I don't yet know how to interpret
>> it correctly - still don't know which driver is  REALLY  being used.

> You do now :)

Yes, with your explanations. Thank you!

>> And, more importantly, why the black screen with any video?

> I could hazard a guess, but it's not anything more than that - just a
> guess. If I were you, I would switch from fglrx to radeon. 99.999% of
> the problems I have had with my system in recent years were due to the
> fglrx driver, switching to radeon did wonders for my system stability.

> If you do not _need_ the fglrx driver for something, like if you have a
> really new card that isn't supported by radeon, I would at least give
> it a try.

I will. Is that as simple as telling the 'other drivers' window to use
the non-selected driver? [I want to make a good backup before that,
though. Last time I did a hardware related change, it completely blew
up the box and I ended up doing a reinstall.]

>> Looks like somebody is trying to force me to upgrade to 14.04. :-)))
>> [which I plan to do, but a bit later...]

> Shouldn't be necessary. If you are happy with 12.04 I see no reason to
> upgrade as long as you are getting security updates. :)

I keep getting notices of 'hardware' updates, but haven't done them,
given what happened last time I tried that. :-)

> Best of luck!

Thanks, and thanks very, very much for the info and explanations.

-- 

 rikona        




More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list