Description of problem: The option like 'linux resolution=xxxx' are not recognized when doing clean install on the system with Dell FP 2405FWP and ATI Radeon X850XT PCI-E. Anaconda reports corrects video card and monitor type but these have not effect on the actual display mode. The picture on the screen is visible on in 75%. This problem was NOT present in FC4. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): FC5, release March 15, 2006, in DVD-bundle. How reproducible: By booting from the DVD. Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Limited display in the graphical mode during the installation even though Anaconda recongized the monitor and the video card. Expected results: Being able to control the 'resolution' option when booting/installing the system. Additional info:
I can confirm this on an Athlon XP3200, X850XT PE AGP card. The weird thing is, it happens with textmode install, too. My Viewsonic VX922 monitor tells me a screen resolution of 1280x1023 while I can see only half of the screen and therefore cannot install. The installation works fine with FC4. I suggest changing the priority to high as it seems impossible to install FC5 with user interaction.
Maybe same problem like the one from me: Check the Xorg.log file (Xorg -verbose) for a line like "... (hfreq to high). See my bug report. Fix: Add line in Device section of xorg.conf: Option "MonitorLayout" "LVDS, CRT" Option "CRT2HSync" "30.0-90.0" This is a Xorg problem!
I can confirm that issue. I have an AMD x2 3800+, 2048MB RAM, ATI X800GTO (PCI-E) and a DELL 2405FWP. I am able to install FC5 in text mode but after starting X only the 640x480 resolution is possible and if I start under settings the "Display" the whole system freeze... (In reply to comment #0) > Description of problem: > > The option like 'linux resolution=xxxx' are not recognized when doing clean > install on the system with Dell FP 2405FWP and ATI Radeon X850XT PCI-E. > Anaconda reports corrects video card and monitor type but these have not > effect on the actual display mode. > The picture on the screen is visible on in 75%. > > This problem was NOT present in FC4. > > Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): > > FC5, release March 15, 2006, in DVD-bundle. > > How reproducible: > > By booting from the DVD. > > Steps to Reproduce: > 1. > 2. > 3. > > Actual results: > > Limited display in the graphical mode during the installation even though > Anaconda recongized the monitor and the video card. > > Expected results: > > Being able to control the 'resolution' option when booting/installing the system. > > Additional info:
Then this is different to mine. I could not install in textmode,to. There were about 25% missing of screen contents in grapfical *and* in textmode install. The only way to install was plugging in an old Radeon 7200 AGP. After plugging in again the X850 I'm not able to run display config and kudzu. My system freezes then.
I just wondering with update to FC4 and to FC5, why the graphic HW is queried if I would like to install in textmode. On my older FC3 box I can't update to FC4, because some python script don't know about my old pci graphic board. So I need to update myself. text mode is text mode, don't matter if and what graphic board is installed! In Redhat 5.1, 6, 7, 9 everything was fine. Why should there always be a GUI to install or update?!
@Simon: I think if you add a line like: [Option "MonitorLayout" "LVDS, CRT"] <- option Option "CRT2HSync" "30.0-90.0" to the device section of your xorg.conf (before update maybe) and comment out the "Load dri" or the "load glx" line, the server starts with the higher/ normal resolution and don't crashs.
(In reply to comment #6) > @Simon: I think if you add a line like: > [Option "MonitorLayout" "LVDS, CRT"] <- option > Option "CRT2HSync" "30.0-90.0" > to the device section of your xorg.conf (before update maybe) > and comment out the "Load dri" or the "load glx" line, the server starts > with the higher/ normal resolution and don't crashs. Well, doeas this work with a LCD monitor? BTW. the monitor is not the problem. The probe was correct. The graphic-card is the problem I think...such issues are really annoying in Linux...(I'm still a newbie..^^)
I can confirm this issue too... I have a Dell Dimension 9100 with a Radeon 850XT PE linux resolution=xxxx doesnt work for me either a text mode install solved the problem altough slightly annoying...
Good news is that I've got 2 Dell 2405FPW displays. The bad news is that I do not have an ATI Radeon X850 or similar hardware, nor a PCI-E motherboard. ;/ I have however successfully installed Fedora Core 5 i386 and x86_64 onto an AMD64 Solo machine with a Radeon 9800 Pro, using DVI-D to the 2405 successfully. This would seem to indicate that there may be a problem in display autodetection in the "radeon" driver for newer generation hardware. Reading the other comments that have been added by others, if using the MonitorLayout option does indeed workaround this problem, that is a solid indication that the video driver currently can not autodetect your connected displays. In this case, you will need to use this workaround until a newer driver is available from X.Org that provides correct autodetection support for this newer ATI hardware. It is strongly recommended to report this problem to X.Org directly via http://bugs.freedesktop.org in the "xorg" component, to ensure that all of the upstream maintainers of the "ati" driver are aware of the problem, as this will greatly increase the likelyhood of someone being able to reproduce the issue and diagnose the driver on the same hardware. Once you've filed a report to X.Org, please paste the bug URL here and Red Hat will track the issue in the X.Org bugzilla, and review any fixes that become available for consideration in a future radeon driver update. Hope this helps. Thanks in advance.
(In reply to comment #9) > Good news is that I've got 2 Dell 2405FPW displays. The bad news is that I > do not have an ATI Radeon X850 or similar hardware, nor a PCI-E motherboard. ;/ I think the named problems with the r300 comes from the graphics board, not from the connected displays - so this this will not really help to reproduce it ;-) > that is a solid > indication that the video driver currently can not autodetect your connected > displays. That's no all: Without a monitor connected to the 2nd vga port of my card, the Xorg 7.x ati driver uses the standard-vga setup also always for the internal LCD. Any higher values are "to high" - complains the ati driver! > It is strongly recommended to report this problem to X.Org directly via > http://bugs.freedesktop.org in the "xorg" component, to ensure that all > of the upstream maintainers of the "ati" driver are aware of the problem, > as this will greatly increase the likelyhood of someone being able to > reproduce the issue and diagnose the driver on the same hardware. The problem was not in FC4, but beginning from FC5. So Fedora should be the best location to report such a problem. It's a bad idea to wait, that anybody report or fix this at Xorg. You can forward such a problem from you bugzilla setup easily.. Thanks.
(In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > Good news is that I've got 2 Dell 2405FPW displays. The bad news is that I > > do not have an ATI Radeon X850 or similar hardware, nor a PCI-E motherboard. ;/ > I think the named problems with the r300 comes from the graphics board, not from > the connected displays - so this this will not really help to reproduce it ;-) The problem is unlikely to be the graphics board itself, or the problem would happen in all OS releases. The problem is almost certainly due to changes in the "radeon" driver that occured between X.Org 6.8.2 (FC4) and X.Org 7.0 (FC5). > > that is a solid > > indication that the video driver currently can not autodetect your connected > > displays. > > That's no all: Without a monitor connected to the 2nd vga port of my card, the > Xorg 7.x ati driver uses the standard-vga setup also always for the internal > LCD. Any higher values are "to high" - complains the ati driver! Yes, again - general display detection problems in the 7.0 "radeon" driver. > > It is strongly recommended to report this problem to X.Org directly via > > http://bugs.freedesktop.org in the "xorg" component, to ensure that all > > of the upstream maintainers of the "ati" driver are aware of the problem, > > as this will greatly increase the likelyhood of someone being able to > > reproduce the issue and diagnose the driver on the same hardware. > > The problem was not in FC4, but beginning from FC5. So Fedora should be > the best location to report such a problem. No, the problem is in X.Org 7.0's "radeon" driver, and not in 6.8.2's. The best place to report _all_ X driver problems is directly in X.Org's bugzilla, unless the problem is reproduceable _only_ on Fedora Core, and even then it is always a good idea to report it upstream, in case someone else can actually reproduce it on another distribution. > It's a bad idea to wait, that anybody report or fix this at Xorg. You > can forward such a problem from you bugzilla setup easily.. X.Org owns and maintains the "radeon" driver. It's entirely up to you if you report this issue to X.Org or not, but reporting the problem to X.Org will ensure that about 10 developers who contribute to the "radeon" driver frequently will see the problem you are reporting, as well as all users of all Linux distributions. Reporting problems like this directly to Red Hat, ensures that only Red Hat users and developers see the problem which almost certainly affects all distributions, and it limits the number of X developers who see the problem to 1 or 2. If you report the problem to X.Org and paste the URL here, we will indeed track the issue in X.Org bugzilla, and if a fix becomes available, we will consider it for inclusion in a future update.
Well, using native kernel and xorg from scratch, that's true - you should report any bug to that source. But FC - you - build there own kernel packages, and it't not to long ago, that the r300 detection (some PCI IDs) was removed from the kernel, so that DRI doesn' work any more for X. Reporting this as a bug to xorg, is not the best. The people need the time to fix real bugs. I can report this icon bug first, when it's a bug in X, not the kernel. But the rawhide kernel shows, that this problem is not there any more in this kernel, but the last ones. One other point is, that there are new sw packages and new kernel packages and in the bug list, there's no comment if this bug is fixed in any new (kernel) package. I just wondering, that FC disables new R300 PCI-ID detection without testing this with a R300 PCI-E graphic board. So, when I build X and the kernel from scratch (x.org/ kernel.org) and this bug is not there, then this should be reported to bugzilla of FC right? I know quality issue is hard to track, but please still try it. I use Redhat/ FC since RH 5.1 for x86 and alpha, and nothing was so buggy than FC5 - this does not mean it's FC5 itself, but the components and if you don't test before shipping - that't BAD. Thanks.
The card that I originally reported the bug is r480 (not r300). This card is detected by FC5 but incorrectly. I configured xorg.conf long time ago to give the desired resolution, except that I do not have 3D support. This is only available from ATI distribution. Best, Janusz. (In reply to comment #12) > Well, using native kernel and xorg from scratch, that's true - you should report > any bug to that source. But FC - you - build there own kernel packages, and it't > not to long ago, that the r300 detection (some PCI IDs) was removed from the > kernel, so that DRI doesn' work any more for X. Reporting this as a bug to xorg, > is not the best. The people need the time to fix real bugs. > > I can report this icon bug first, when it's a bug in X, not the kernel. But the > rawhide kernel shows, that this problem is not there any more in this kernel, > but the last ones. > One other point is, that there are new sw packages and new kernel packages and > in the bug list, there's no comment if this bug is fixed in any new (kernel) > package. > > I just wondering, that FC disables new R300 PCI-ID detection without testing > this with a R300 PCI-E graphic board. > > So, when I build X and the kernel from scratch (x.org/ kernel.org) and this bug > is not there, then this should be reported to bugzilla of FC right? > > I know quality issue is hard to track, but please still try it. > I use Redhat/ FC since RH 5.1 for x86 and alpha, and nothing was so buggy > than FC5 - this does not mean it's FC5 itself, but the components and if you > don't test before shipping - that't BAD. > > Thanks.