antiX will not set the native monitor resolution

Forum Forums General Hardware antiX will not set the native monitor resolution

  • This topic has 81 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated Dec 31-3:11 pm by ant_222.
Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 82 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #95600
    Member
    ant_222

      We have been trying to help, but you never even tried my solution. I went to the trouble of figuring it out for you, but you didn’t even try it. You only tried DaveW’s solution.

      As I have repatedly reported here, any non-antiX kernel I install (5.18, 6.*, Liquorix or Debian) seems unable to recognise any command-line options, e.g.:
      [ 0.021360] Unknown kernel command line parameters "insmod i915 BOOT_IMAGE=/boot/vmlinuz-6.0.0-12.1-liquorix-amd64", will be passed to user space.
      I can and will try your solution with the antiX 4.9 and 5.10 kernels, which at least report no errors in dmesg, although other members here and in the IRC have suggested that I need at least 5.18. I beg your pardon if I failed to make myself understood about it: experiments with kernel command-line options seems ineffectual as long a the kernel fails to recognise and proceess any of them. Let me know if you think I should disregard the error messages in dmesg, incduing crashing the kernel on kernel split_lock, and try your boot options anyway.

      Also please bear in mind that my spare time every day is limited, so that I may not always perform all the test you and other memebers have suggested. But I am doing what I can.

      As to installing Debian Dog Sid for side-by-side comparison, is it not equally possible to boot the Debian from its live USB and compare to the antiX system I have installed? Only frugal installation seems officially supported by Debian Dog Sid, and I have no skill yet for manual configuration of the GRUB on my main boot partiton to load Debian Dog. If possible, I should prefer not to do it for the time being. If, however, you think proper installation important, I will take a pause to get it installed and will come back once I manage it.

      • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by ant_222.
      #95620
      Moderator
      BobC

        We have been trying to help, but you never even tried my solution. I went to the trouble of figuring it out for you, but you didn’t even try it. You only tried DaveW’s solution.

        As I have repatedly reported here, any non-antiX kernel I install (5.18, 6.*, Liquorix or Debian) seems unable to recognise any command-line options, e.g.:
        [ 0.021360] Unknown kernel command line parameters "insmod i915 BOOT_IMAGE=/boot/vmlinuz-6.0.0-12.1-liquorix-amd64", will be passed to user space.
        I can and will try your solution with the antiX 4.9 and 5.10 kernels, which at least report no errors in dmesg, although other members here and in the IRC have suggested that I need at least 5.18. I beg your pardon if I failed to make myself understood about it: experiments with kernel command-line options seems ineffectual as long a the kernel fails to recognise and proceess any of them. Let me know if you think I should disregard the error messages in dmesg, incduing crashing the kernel on kernel split_lock, and try your boot options anyway.

        Also please bear in mind that my spare time every day is limited, so that I may not always perform all the test you and other memebers have suggested. But I am doing what I can.

        As to installing Debian Dog Sid for side-by-side comparison, is it not equally possible to boot the Debian from its live USB and compare to the antiX system I have installed? Only frugal installation seems officially supported by Debian Dog Sid, and I have no skill yet for manual configuration of the GRUB on my main boot partiton to load Debian Dog. If possible, I should prefer not to do it for the time being. If, however, you think proper installation important, I will take a pause to get it installed and will come back once I manage it.

        1. As you can see from the prior page’s comments starting at the one you quoted, I am nut using that exact same Liquorix kernel so cannot vouch for the one you are trying. I do know that the one I am using is working with antiX 64 (not base, not runit).
        2. I don’t have an insmod 915 before my other boot parameters. I did tell you not to add parameters before the existing boot parameters. IMO, that is why you have at least one of the errors. Also, if I don’t need insmod 915, I doubt you do. That was not my suggestion.
        3. I gave you the exact string to try, just reboot, when it gets to where you can edit the string, do it there and try it.
        4. I don’t get those errors and don’t crash.
        5. Debian Dog: I was able to boot and install it, but antiX’s grub boot system didn’t setup a boot for it that worked. I had to do that manually. Their full install did not delete my test system, but I couldn’t tell if the grub they used would support a UEFI system, so I didn’t install that. I don’t want my Win/10 or other half dozen distro’s o that system messed up. Few Linux distro’s have official support. Read the disclaimers.
        6. I really think you should just get things working with a screen you can read and internet before messing with fancy things like frugal installs because they are more difficult

        • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by BobC. Reason: typos
        #95670
        Member
        ant_222

          I did tell you not to add parameters before the existing boot parameters. IMO, that is why you have at least one of the errors.

          As I wrote above, I have both the errors before I change anything in the grub config, with all the kernels that I have tried without antix in the package name. Only the antix ones load smoothly.

          I did tell you not to add parameters before the existing boot parameters.

          I missed that part and assumed the order of those command-line parameters had no effect. I have no evidence to the contrary, yet I have tried it with your lines verbatim (see below:)

          I gave you the exact string to try, just reboot, when it gets to where you can edit the string, do it there and try it.

          I found it both more convenient and reliable to copy those lines into the file via the clipboard than to retype them in the GRUB editor, where half the line is obstructed by the display overlay warning. Now I have tried:

          [6.0.0-12.1-liquorix-amd64 ] acpi_osi=!Windows i915.force_probe=4e61
          [5.10.142-antix.2-amd64-smp] acpi_osi=!Windows i915.preliminary_hw_support=1

          It did not help, no additional resolutions were detected by xrandr. The 5.10 kernel writes:
          pinctrl_jasperlake: module verification failed: signature and/or required key missing - tainting kernel
          which means it does load some Jasperlake driver.

          I do know that the one I am using is working with antiX 64 (not base, not runit).

          Do you mean the antiX full? I did not find anything in the docs suggesting antiX full supports a wider range of hardware or has better auto-detection capabilities. My imporession was that it simply had a second kernel (installable in base) and more user-level packages pre-installed. Nor can I conjecture how the init system may effect this, but I will try everything again with antiX full non runit and with exactly your version of Liquorix kernel.

          I really think you should just get things working with a screen you can read and internet before messing with fancy things like frugal installs because they are more difficult

          What made you think I wanted a frugal install? I should prefer a normal install, but Puppy Linux has deprecated it, and Debian Dog Sid supports only frugal mode in its graphical installer. I have no idea how to initiate a normal install (yet).

          • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by ant_222.
          • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by ant_222.
          #95676
          Moderator
          Brian Masinick

            I looked up “Debian Dog” and indeed there is one. It’s actually a spin-off of the many Puppy Linux variations. Though it’s reasonable in size, install Debian Bullseye and either use a desktop like Xfce, or select your own choices and choose a window manager, such as IceWM, jwm, or whatever you like instead.
            It’ll be very fast and efficient if you don’t install too much extra stuff. I’ve always had good results with Debian.

            If you really want to “take a chance” and try something innovative and very fast, I’d install siduction as a Debian Sid system. It’s very fast and it’s the best Sid based distribution I use. If, however, you still consider yourself a novice, don’t go there; while it’s very good, you pretty much have to navigate on your own, so only experiment if you want to try it out. I’m guessing it’s going to be too much. I put it out there though because it’s a great distribution.

            MX Linux would be a nice complement to antiX; after all it is a relative to antiX; in fact, anticapitalista has contributed to the work in the past and it shares several utilities with antiX.

            As for Debian Dog, nothing wrong with it, but I think it’s designed primarily to run live or as the only system; it doesn’t seem to have the provisions to do quite the same things as antiX can, except in the hands of a veteran able to overcome the “as is” features in order to work side-by-side with other distributions.

            --
            Brian Masinick

            #95678
            Moderator
            BobC

              I tried to get you to run the most common version: antiX full x64 sysvinit which is what my Skylake that works in 3840 x 2160 is running.

              So, I see your error message changed…

              What is that signature/key error about? I’ve never had that error. Maybe it is refusing or unable to work without it.

              I see you didn’t add the boot parameters the way I suggested. The reason I have all 3 forms of that i915. parameter is because they all do the same thing, so whichever one that kernel accepts should be there.

              Did you think about trying the Debian Dog kernel that works on your machine with antiX? Maybe also check what boot parameters its using?

              It might be that you have to wait for the sid stuff that makes DD work to make it to stable if you can’t diagnose and solve your problems. I agree with Brian that DD is cool, but I wouldn’t want to be running sid and depending on it all day every day for everything I do.

              PS: Why not base/runit? I’m not saying there is anything wrong with either. But my Skylake is not running them. Its just adding permutations for every little thing that different that doesn’t need to be different. Be different if you like 🙂 Do things your way. I’m not going to try to stop you. Its your machine.

              • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by BobC.
              #95680
              Moderator
              Brian Masinick

                I tried to get you to run the most common version: antiX full x64 sysvinit which is what my Skylake that works in 3840 x 2160 is running.

                So, I see your error message changed…

                What is that signature/key error about? I’ve never had that error. Maybe it is refusing or unable to work without it.

                I see you didn’t add the boot parameters the way I suggested. The reason I have all 3 forms of that i915. parameter is because they all do the same thing, so whichever one that kernel accepts should be there.

                Did you think about trying the Debian Dog kernel that works on your machine with antiX? Maybe also check what boot parameters its using?

                It might be that you have to wait for the sid stuff that makes DD work to make it to stable if you can’t diagnose and solve your problems. I agree with Brian that DD is cool, but I wouldn’t want to be running sid and depending on it all day every day for everything I do.

                As BobC says, Sid and dd are both cool; however my opinion is that both require considerable skill. They’re great if you can train yourself to use them. This forum isn’t the appropriate place to obtain training for another distribution, regardless of how cool and interesting it may be.

                --
                Brian Masinick

                #95799
                Member
                ant_222

                  So, I see your error message changed…

                  No, it was added to the other two ones.

                  What is that signature/key error about? I’ve never had that error. Maybe it is refusing or unable to work without it.

                  Would that I knew. The full unfiltered output of dmesg shows no explaining context, i.e. no other related messages before or after the one about a missing key, and no other error messages from pinctrl in the whole session.

                  I see you didn’t add the boot parameters the way I suggested. The reason I have all 3 forms of that i915. parameter is because they all do the same thing, so whichever one that kernel accepts should be there.

                  Then I did not understand your post the way you meant it. You do not provide a single GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX entry ready for pasting or retyping into my file, but listed three options for three different intervals of kernel versions, and for each of the two kernels I have I tried the parameter you recommended for it. Now I have tried all three together:
                  acpi_osi=!Windows i915.preliminary_hw_support=1 i915.alpha_support=1 i915.force_probe=4e61
                  with both 5.10.142-antix and 6.0.0-12.1-liquorix. but with no success. Strangely, neiher kernel complained about those parameteres. Is that what you wanted me to do?

                  As you can see from the prior page’s comments starting at the one you quoted, I am nut using that exact same Liquorix kernel so cannot vouch for the one you are trying. I do know that the one I am using is working with antiX 64 (not base, not runit).

                  OK, I installed this one, but still fail to install your version of liquorix:

                  So the answer to get what I have above installed was to go to the Liquorix.net site and follow their instructions to download and install their kernel.

                  Easier said that done. As I understand, the install page lists two alternative methods of installation: The first one is listed under Debian prerequisites:
                  curl 'http://liquorix.net/add-liquorix-repo.sh' | sudo bash
                  But it does not install only the prerequisites, nor, as the filename (add-liquorix-repo.sh) implies, does it simply register the liquorix repository. What this command actually does is install the latest version of the entire kernel¹! I have looked at the script source and see that it is indeed misnamed. This is how I got a different kernel version from yours—by following the official instructions you and Bob quoted. Now I have repeated this in my freshly installed antix-22-x64 full init-v with exactly the same result as before: the kernel was installed in spite of build errors:

                  Building module:
                  cleaning build area...
                  'make' -j4 KVER=6.0.0-13.2-liquorix-amd64 USER_MODULE_NAME=rtl8821ce 
                  CONFIG_RTW_DEBUG=n......(bad exit status: 2)
                  Error! Bad return status for module build on kernel: 6.0.0-13.2-liquorix-amd64 (x86_64)
                  Consult /var/lib/dkms/rtl8821ce/5.5.2.1/build/make.log for more information.
                  .
                  Setting up linux-headers-liquorix-amd64 (6.0-11.1~bullseye) ...
                  Processing triggers for man-db (2.9.4-2) ...
                  Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.31-13+deb11u4) ...
                  [INFO ] Liquorix kernel installed successfully

                  The exact make error is this:

                    CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/rtl8821ce/5.5.2.1/build/core/rtw_sreset.o
                  /var/lib/dkms/rtl8821ce/5.5.2.1/build/core/rtw_br_ext.c:20:11: fatal error: net/ipx.h: 
                  No such file or directory
                     20 |  #include <net/ipx.h>
                        |           ^~~~~~~~~~~
                  compilation terminated.

                  Is it normal² that the kernel should ignore this compilation error and continue installation? The script also added the liquorix repo to my apt, with some addtional GPG keys, the absence of which expains the error I had the first time, when adding those repositories by hand. Now I can install the exact version that you have:
                  sudo apt-get install linux-image-6.0.0-9.1-liquorix-amd64 linux-headers-6.0.0-9.1-liquorix-amd64
                  Installation ended up with exactly the same compilation error, so I won’t quote it again. With 6.0.0-9.1, my antiX booted into the wrong resolution, whicn again could not be changed. Adding all three i915 options (which the kernel installer deleted!) to grub had no observable effect either. Again, the kernel did not complain about any one of the i915 options, as if it recognised and accepted all three.

                  I hope this is the test you recommended that I make, Bob.

                  Did you think about trying the Debian Dog kernel that works on your machine with antiX? Maybe also check what boot parameters its using?

                  Yes! And this is also what Brian proposes, but my hands were full with trying out your former suggestions. How does one transplant the Debian Dog kernel to antiX? I can also boot into Dog and check its X11 configuration.

                  As BobC says, Sid and dd are both cool; however my opinion is that both require considerable skill. They’re great if you can train yourself to use them. This forum isn’t the appropriate place to obtain training for another distribution, regardless of how cool and interesting it may be.

                  I wonder know how this subject of using Debuian Dog came up. I mentioned this distro only as one that can set the correct resolution for me. I was never going to use it as a main OS. It would be great if you could help me compare its config with that of antiX, bootng DD from its live USB so I don’t have to install it normally.

                  Update:
                  I think I have located the kernel in Debian Dog. It is not a single file, but a squashfs filesystem mounted at:
                  /mnt/live/memory/images/k-6.0.0-2-amd64.squashfs/
                  Brian, is it one of your proposals to transfer these files somehow to my antiX installation? If so, where is the corresponding location in antiX? Shall I have to repackage it somehow for antiX?

                  ¹ I have reported this defect in the install instructions on Liquorix forum.
                  ² I have reported this compilation error on the Liquorix forum

                  • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by ant_222.
                  • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by ant_222.
                  • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by ant_222.
                  #95803
                  Moderator
                  BobC

                    Well, I’m sorry that adding the boot parameters didn’t work. Once I had mine working I have been very careful to test all changes and leave myself a way to easily return to previous software and settings. It took a lot of time/effort and attempts to get video working well on this machine, so I know the feeling.

                    I eventually figured it out when I found that Dell had sold this machine with Ubuntu and got the settings it used.

                    If it was me in your situation, I would search for
                    linux xorg resolution Intel Jasper Lake “4e61”

                    You could try adding more criteria like bug kernel

                    Since DD works, you should try comparing things like firmware, xorg 915 driver, kernel, and see if you can get those versions or similar versions to work

                    http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1570392

                    # compare output (ie boot parameters, firmware, anything i915 related, warnings, errors) from:
                    sudo dmesg
                    xrandr --verbose
                    /var/log/Xorg.0.log
                    # investigate newer firmware (since DD probably has it) see:
                    http://gist.github.com/Postrediori/556706b28aff3b831d9e41acb47418c5
                    # Look for packages in /var/cache/apt/archives
                    linux-headers
                    linux-image
                    
                    • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by BobC.
                    #95804
                    Moderator
                    BobC

                      BTW: You can find the different Liquorix kernel packages here: http://liquorix.net/debian/pool/main/l/linux-liquorix/

                      And here you will find it looks like that force probe I add to mine is required for jasperlake, and the split for elkhartlake from a guy at intel
                      http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2020-October/281872.html

                      PS: I don’t know if you noticed or not, and don’t know your drive configuration, but Fredx181 confirmed the DD uses an old version of grub4DOS which cannot handle UEFI install, so if you do load DD, don’t install/use its grub if you have UEFI (which is likely if it was a Windows machine). You will probably want to use grub2 (like most distros include) to manage the hard drive boot.

                      PSS: You could try other distros. Or maybe the “testing” repos have newer kernels and/or code. I suppose you need to dig and try things:
                      http://askubuntu.com/questions/1362382/how-can-i-change-screen-resolution-with-intel-integrated-graphics-on-atom-x6413

                      • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by BobC.
                      • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by BobC.
                      #95844
                      Member
                      ant_222

                        While I have not started comparing the configurations of antiX and Debian Dog, can you please tell me what happened to the following post on the MX forum: solved: possible missing firmware/i915? The search engine finds this URL, but the forum says: The requested topic does not exist.

                        • This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by ant_222.
                        #95854
                        Moderator
                        Brian Masinick

                          Try this search:
                          Possible Missing Firmware i915

                          --
                          Brian Masinick

                          #95859
                          Member
                          ant_222

                            I’m wondering if, in this case, it is necessary to construct a specific Xorg.conf file that contains the necessary parameters.

                            Right you were! To enable the correct resolution I manually wrote an xorg.conf using the Debian Dog one as reference:

                            Section "Screen"
                                Identifier  "screen"
                                Device      "device"
                                Monitor     "monitor"
                                Subsection "Display"
                                    Depth   24
                                    Modes   "1280x1024"
                                EndSubSection
                            EndSection
                            Section "Module"
                                Load "glx"
                            EndSection
                            Section "Monitor"
                                Identifier  "monitor"
                            EndSection
                            Section "Device"
                                Identifier "device"
                            #   Driver     "intel"
                            EndSection

                            After restarting X, antiX was able to set the native resoution of my monitor, with the antiX kernel v. 5.10. I then moved the xrandr autostart script out of the way by commenting
                            ~/.screenlayout/default.sh
                            Debian Dog’s xorg.conf is setting:
                            Driver "intel"
                            in the Device section, which in my case seems to have no effect: lsmod shows several entries with i915, incuding:
                            video 53248 1 i915
                            Nor is the force-probing in GRUB reqruied. What tests do you think I can make to make sure my graphical system is fully configured?

                            Thanks to all of you for your help and patience with me.

                            Now I have to confiture the native resolution in my virtual consoles as well, those acessible via CTRL+ALT+F1..F6. May I ask for help with them in this thread? I tried to set:
                            GRUB_GFXMODE=1280x1024
                            but it was ingored. The comment in the GRUB config says vbeinfo should list the available modes, but:

                            grub> vbeinfo
                            error: can't find command 'vbeinfo'
                            grub> videoinfo
                            Adapter 'Cirrus CLGD 5446 PCI Video Driver': No info available
                            Adapter 'Bochs PCI Video Driver': No info available
                            Adapter 'EFI GOP dirver':
                              * 0x000 1024 x 768 x 32 ...
                                0x001  640 x 480 x 32 ...
                                0x002  800 x 600 x 32 ...
                              EDID version: 1.4
                                Preferred mode: 1024x768

                            That is, GRUB does not recogise the required resolution. Since it mentioned EDID, it may be consulting may be querying my display metadata. Can I override it? And is it generally correct to configure the resolution of virtual console via GRUB?

                            Update:
                            The Arch wiki mentions a 915 resolution hack intended to solve exactly my problem, but it dates back to more than 10 years ago. I wonder if the hack is still required…

                            I do seem to have a framebuffer:

                            fbset -i
                            mode "1024x768"
                                geometry 1024 768 1024 768 32
                                timings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
                                accel true
                                rgba 8/16,8/8,8/0,0/0
                            endmode
                            Frame buffer device information:
                                Name        : i915drmfb
                                Address     : 0
                                Size        : 3145728
                                Type        : PACKED PIXELS
                                Visual      : TRUECOLOR
                                XPanStep    : 1
                                YPanStep    : 1
                                YWrapStep   : 0
                                LineLength  : 4096
                                Accelerator : No

                            But fbset has no effect on the look of my CTRL-ALT-Fn termnals.

                            #95860
                            Member
                            ant_222

                              BobC,
                              can you please update the original post the following text:
                              <strong>Solution for X11:</strong> see post <a href="/forums/topic/antix-will-not-set-the-native-monitor-resolution/page/5/#post-95859">95859</a>.
                              so that other readers with a similar problem can jump to the solution without reading through the whole thread?

                              #95869
                              Moderator
                              BobC

                                FYI, I found that the version of firmware-misc-nonfree in the repos is from 20210315, and the description does not show jasper lake in the description as one of the Intel systems included. It might be that one of the newer versions does.

                                You could look at this thread
                                http://techpatterns.com/forums/about2968.html&highlight=firmware

                                #95874
                                Moderator
                                caprea

                                  You could allow us to have a look at
                                  inxi -Gxx

                                Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 82 total)
                                • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.