Getting rid of "AMD Unsupported Hardware" overlay message after video driver update

After update from geeko.ioda.net/ATI community repo of AMD’s Catalist 12.6 / fglrx 8.9801-1 for oS 12.1 64-bit, I got a nice watermark at the bottom-right corner of the screen saying “AMD Unsupported Hardware”, although the video is a (supported) Radeon HD 6310 integrated chipset.

Long story short, it’s an error either in the signature or control file in /etc/ati/ that AMD is in no hurry to fix.

There are not-so-simple solutions around that involve using sed on the driver’s binary files. What was easier for me was to substitute /etc/ati/control with another control file from a previous working (i.e., without watermark) version.

In my case I got the file from a dropbox share in this thread: Catalyst 12.6 final is out - Page 2

You can try the patch I posted here: http://forums.opensuse.org/english/get-technical-help-here/hardware/466737-ati-radeonhd-6310m-opensuse-11-4-asus-k43u-seris-laptop.html#post2396338. It has worked a while ago. I can not guarantee that it still does.

I’m using 12.1, but thanks for the reference. If in the future the 12.1 beta control file fix breaks I’ll try it.

I don’t think it matters.

thx for the info

tried it with the beta amd-driver-installer-12.6-legacy-x86.x86_64.run installer,
and it works

the “AMD Testing use only” watermark is no more

only change needed was for the directory of the driver,
for 3.4.4-32-desktop x86_64 (64 bit); KDE 4.8.4 “release 7”;
Radeon HD 3200;
file watermark.sh used is as shown below

#!/bin/sh
#DRIVER=/usr/lib/fglrx/xorg/modules/drivers/fglrx_drv.so
DRIVER=/usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers/fglrx_drv.so         #changed for 12.6_legacy
for x in $(objdump -d $DRIVER|awk '/call/&&/EnableLogo/{print "\\x"$2"\\x"$3"\\x"$4"\\x"$5"\\x"$6}'); do
sed -i "s/$x/\x90\x90\x90\x90\x90/g" $DRIVER
done

?
If you looked at the code I posted (post #8 of the thread linked above) , that was not necessary. It was actually the point of this post.

oops

i missed the point of line
DRIVER=$(find /usr/lib*/xorg/modules/drivers -name “fglrx_drv.so” | head -1)

my focus was, this worked for the latest beta 12.6_legacy driver,
due to the thread title referred too,
and it should work for HD2000/3000/4000 series drivers

also should have referred to post
::KaibaTheLegacy::: remove annoying amd unsupported hardware logo in Linux](http://kaibathelegacy.blogspot.de/2011/08/remove-annoying-amd-unsupported.html)

thx again

Yes, and it’s good info. So people know how to remove this watermark if it bothers them. I personally find "Testing use only’ less bothering than “AMD Unsupported Hardware”. I haven’t removed this one from the beta 12.6_legacy, because somehow … I don’t expect to keep using this driver for six months … but who knows? lol!

That a good point, but I’m glad I found this info as 12.6 has removed support for my apu and 12.6 legacy is all I can get to work right now, and as I mentioned here http://forums.opensuse.org/english/get-technical-help-here/tumbleweed/476576-kernel-3-4-amd-catalyst-12-6-legacy-compatible.html

I actually get Unsupported and Testing use only both at the same time, so hopefully this removes both watermarks lol. I also dont hope to use this driver very long, but 12.8 doesn’t look promising regardless, so I’d rather get 12.4 back running which is tricky.

On 09/08/12 07:26, l300lvl wrote:
>
> please_try_again;2474660 Wrote:
>> Yes, and it’s good info. So people know how to remove this watermark if
>> it bothers them. I personally find "Testing use only’ less bothering
>> than “AMD Unsupported Hardware”. I haven’t removed this one from the
>> beta 12.6_legacy, because somehow … I don’t expect to keep using this
>> driver for six months … but who knows? lol!
>
> That a good point, but I’m glad I found this info as 12.6 has removed
> support for my apu and 12.6 legacy is all I can get to work right now,
> and as I mentioned here http://tinyurl.com/d5o6obu
>
> I actually get Unsupported and Testing use only both at the same time,
> so hopefully this removes both watermarks lol. I also dont hope to use
> this driver very long, but 12.8 doesn’t look promising regardless, so
> I’d rather get 12.4 back running which is tricky.
>
>

I use PTA’s “atiupgrade” and copy the rpm into a local collection. That
gives two options for reversion: use the copy or run “atiupgrade 12.4”
(the latter also seems to have cleared a minor display problem with LO
Calc/12.4 as well as reverting without additional downloads).

I assumed the message duplicated a problem I had with nVidia drivers a
while back, where my device was dropped from the list (and no indication
given).

Phil

PeeGee

MSI m/b 870-C45, AMD Athlon II X3 445, 4GB, openSUSE 11.4/11.3 x86_64
dual boot + XP Home in VBox
Asus m/b M2NPV-VM, AMD 64X2 3800+, 2GB, openSUSE 11.3 x86_64/XP Home
dual boot
Acer Aspire 1350, AMD (M)XP2400+, 768MB, openSUSE 11.4/XP Home dual boot
Asus eeePC 4G (701), Celeron M353, 2GB, openSUSE 11.3 on SSD

Just use atiupgrade 5.0.3 from unixversal website (see link in this post: Upgrading ATI driver with atiupgrade). It’s not really tricky, except that it doesn’t look like downgrading, because of the weird version number of the legacy beta driver.

I should update the version in my repo. I bought a HD6450, have it in a box here … I just wish I could hire someone to help me.
Alternatively, if enough people could test version 5.0.3 of atiupgrade with HD Radeon cards > 5000 and report that it works, I would update the version in repo. Version 5.0.3 is supposed to work with all models. The version in repo will install the wrong driver if used with legacy models (HD radeon 2000x, 3000x and 4000x series).

I did downgrade on one machine from 12.6 legacy beta to 12.4 using:

# atiupgrade 12.4
  • with atiupgrade 5.0.3

The reason I’m using 12.6 legacy is because I’m on 12.2 rc2 using kernel 3.4.6.11 on an evergreen hd 6310 mobile apu, so the standard 12.4 won’t work since it doesn’t work right with kernel 3.4 unless using the correct patches etc, and 12.6 standard has removed ALL mobile apu support.

openSUSE Lizards

The above link had working rpms in it’s repo for 12.4 and it still has the correct build scripts and everything but they removed the 12.4 rpms, so now it only wants to run for 12.6.

I posted about the issue here http://forums.opensuse.org/english/get-technical-help-here/tumbleweed/476409-warning-kernel-3-4-amd-catalyst-12-6-not-compatible-2.html#post2479084

I’d love help getting 12.4 running, I’m no longer worried about watermarks. I could live with 12.4 for the rest of this laptops life if I had to xD

@l300lvl,
I understand. I’ll have to pass. I really don’t have time to include these patches - if there are any. I just hope they will be included in the next run file. I just had a quick look at the makerpm-amd-12.4.sh script. As far as I can tell, it just builds the rpm package in the current directory. If you see this rpm in the current directory, you may try to install it from there with zypper in followed by the name of this file (fglrx… something.rpm)

That’s what I thought too, it downloaded the run and everything and got all the way to the installing step, but I never see a rpm in the dir I tried to run it from and it tells me it’s trying to install from the name of the dir lets say "/home/l300lvl/’ and that it can’t find the rpm. There is never an rpm created in that dir, it is odd.

You can do that:

find / -type f -name "fglrx*rpm"

If a rpm has been created, you’ll find it. It might take a while though. If you find some in /usr/share/atiupgrade, that’s not it.

Are you sure kernel 3.4 requires patches that are not included in the run file? If not, you can just use atiupgrade to downgrade. The rpm will be in /usr/share/atiupgrade. If it fails to compile the module, you will notice. At this point you could apply the patch manually (provided you have it) and compile the kernel module. It’s not totally simple but it’s do-able. But maybe it will just compile fine - I don’t know.

Doesn’t the rpm from the repo include the necessary patches?

Yes it does, but that rpm is 12.6 standard(not legacy) which removed all mobile apu support, and I thought okay it might work anyways but alas it does not, meaning it knows I have a mobile apu(or no longer knows what a mobile apu is).

My situation is somewhat more pesky. And the rpm isn’t being created, it isn’t getting a name to create it as. After running that again, what it does is download the 12.4 run straight from amd which still needs patcched for 3.4, and then tries to create the rpm as that dir say ‘home/l300lvl/.rpm’ which fails(what it shows it creating it as is actually just the name of the dir, no actual file name or extension), it is never specifying a name to write the file as. If I get around to it I’ll remove 12.6 legacy and run that again and post the output on the other thread.

12.6 (not legacy) doesn’t work at all with your graphics card but the kernel module would compile (on kernel 3.1 - without special patches)…I actually installed it and of course, couls not restart X. That’s why I had to write a new version of atiupgrade (5.0.3) which detects if the graphics card is a HD Radeon prior to 5000 and downloads an installs the legacy driver in this case.

Hmm… I cannot tell without having tried. Maybe there is a bug in this script. I’m tempted to wait until Sebastian Siebert includes thoses patches in the next run file. They might introduced new bugs which requires other patches though.

Why would you remove 12.6 legacy first? You shouldn’t need to remove it to build a package for 12.4. (Once built) use zypper in --force to install it (and it will replace 12.6). If it fails to compile the module, just revert to 12.6 legacy before rebooting (or you will end up with nothing).

It sounds indeed reasonable to start a new thread. It has not much to do with the watermark issue originally discussed here.

You are right, but since I’m already discussing this in 2 threads maybe it is better to just keep it here

http://forums.opensuse.org/english/get-technical-help-here/tumbleweed/476409-warning-kernel-3-4-amd-catalyst-12-6-not-compatible-2.html#post2479084

I’ve responded to that post now explaining why I thought I should remove 12.6 first, which was pointless, thanks for pointing that out.

I’m also posting the log of Sebastians script there.

The log is posted now, it will probably make more sense to you than it does me.