Mailinglist Archive: radeonhd (93 mails)

[Ákos Maróy <akos@xxxxxxxx>]

Alex,

> It does make sense to change it, but the memory clock is trickier to
> deal with than the engine clock because you need make sure you don't
> lower it too much for your current bandwidth requirements (3D engine,
> displays, etc.) or you'll get underflow and display or rendering
> problems.

I see.. I already encountered flickering when chaning the engine clock
to 1/4th of the original value.

> Atom tables use 10 khz units.  There are power tables in the bios that
> have sets of known good clock combinations.  The ddx doesn't currently
> use them, however, kms does.  If you really want to play with power
> management KMS is your best bet.  The ddx options are more of a stop
> gap until the kms code is more mature.

this KMS you're mentioning, this would be the drm-2.6 kernel tree you
sent a git URL about, and which failed for me when compiling. did I see
correct that this is a kernel branch made sometime during 2.6.2x?
Unfortunately for other hardware I need a 2.6.32+ kernel tree...

> rhd doesn't have support for evergreen cards at the moment.

thanks for the info.

is there an ETA on evergreen support in any of the radeon drivers -
radeon, radeonhd and ATI binary official? is this like weeks, months, years?


Akos

-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: radeonhd+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: radeonhd+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx