Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Ask ATI" dev thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    CF present is okey.

    CF if easy done. dunno bout it, since i dunno damn thing about it.
    CF with quad displays would be crazy cool.
    Howto for HDMI audio.

    Well, questions.

    When will CF be supported.

    When will we be able to overclock in linux, watch temps or anything like it.

    Videoplayback issues fixed when ?.

    Aiglx improvements.

    and will the open source driver be anyhow supported with 3rd party closed source ati developed software ? prioritary. for stuff the open source cannot have due to licence and all that crap ?.

    pretty satisfied with hd 3870 under linux
    Last edited by Ole-Martin Broz; 01-10-2008, 05:38 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Question:
      Are there plans to introduce user controlled powerplay settings in the linux control center, in a similar way to what exists in windows?

      I know one can use aticonfig, but we can not for example prevent the card from going to a lower powerstate when switching to battery mode.

      Comment


      • #63
        About testing fglrx

        I'd also like to know what programs are used to test fglrx, but more specifically, what open source programs, if any, are used?

        BZFlag? RSS-GLX screensavers? XScreenSaver's OpenGL hacks? Mesa's demo programs?

        Is fglrx tested with anything like glean http://glean.sourceforge.net or the official SGI OpenGL conformance tests?

        Also, since the Windows drivers are supposed to be able to detect GPU lockups and reset the hardware, are there any plans to implement this functionality on Linux? Even if it killed the X server, it would be better than hard locking the entire system.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by kmolazz View Post
          Question:
          Are there plans to introduce user controlled powerplay settings in the linux control center, in a similar way to what exists in windows?

          I know one can use aticonfig, but we can not for example prevent the card from going to a lower powerstate when switching to battery mode.
          they did it!

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Vighy View Post
            they did it!
            you mean we can expect it in the upcoming releases?

            Comment


            • #66
              Why does my card only work in low power mode?

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by kmolazz View Post
                you mean we can expect it in the upcoming releases?
                I mean they already did it for the 7.12 release! (Linux Catalyst Control Center 1.7)

                Comment


                • #68
                  hum... i don't have anything related to powerplay in the amd linux control center. I have a X700M, what card are you using?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by kmolazz View Post
                    hum... i don't have anything related to powerplay in the amd linux control center. I have a X700M, what card are you using?
                    HD2600 Mobility, it's there even if powerplay is not supported yet (on my card).

                    it should be there..

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      My question:
                      Could there maybe be two branches for the fglrx driver?
                      One driver, where _only_ fixes go in (and it is branched off the other one in bigger intervals), so something like a stable branch.
                      8.40.4 was _a bit_ like that.
                      And one branch where features go in (AIGLX), but which might have more bugs and for which not every release might work for everyone.

                      Mainly what I'm asking here is:
                      Can we get fixes for already released driver versions?
                      The current policy to not touch drivers, that have been released is really not the best.

                      So, lets consider, that 8.40.4 maybe was a version, that worked for most people, so there could be a verion 8.40.4-rev1, which brings kernel 2.6.23 (Yes, that is a fix, not a feature!), or if it had this resolution thing (that 7.12 currently has), then there could be a -rev2 for that.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Berniyh View Post
                        My question:
                        Could there maybe be two branches for the fglrx driver?
                        One driver, where _only_ fixes go in (and it is branched off the other one in bigger intervals), so something like a stable branch.
                        8.40.4 was _a bit_ like that.
                        And one branch where features go in (AIGLX), but which might have more bugs and for which not every release might work for everyone.

                        Mainly what I'm asking here is:
                        Can we get fixes for already released driver versions?
                        The current policy to not touch drivers, that have been released is really not the best.

                        So, lets consider, that 8.40.4 maybe was a version, that worked for most people, so there could be a verion 8.40.4-rev1, which brings kernel 2.6.23 (Yes, that is a fix, not a feature!), or if it had this resolution thing (that 7.12 currently has), then there could be a -rev2 for that.
                        do you mean something like the kernel way?

                        could be nice, but with reduced man power it's the end of the development.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Vighy View Post
                          do you mean something like the kernel way?

                          could be nice, but with reduced man power it's the end of the development.
                          Yes, and No.
                          The kernel people stabilize every release, that's not what I asked for.

                          Every once in a while (lets say every about every 6 monts) there is a driver version, that seems to work for most people quite good, but as always there are some issues.

                          Take 7.11 for example, that seemed to work for most people, but it has bugs, that simply prevents it from going stable on some distros, like the soname bug. I guess that one is not a really big deal, 7.12 fixed it. Now for most people 7.12 was a disappointment, because if the resolution bug and various other issues. If now ATI would backport the soname fix (maybe a few others), that are known to not open one of the new bugs, that 7.12 has, there would be a more stable 7.11, maybe one, that most distros could use as a stable driver.
                          Now as I said, not every driver version has to get fixes, obviously 8.42.3 and 8.41.7 were not good enough to deserve a living beyond there release.

                          Would it really be that hard, to maintain (in addition to the normal release) lets say two branches, that are known to be worth maintaining?
                          I don't think, that someone would really care if they get dropped after a year (I mean, who cares about 8.36 or 8.30 these days?).

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Berniyh View Post
                            Yes, and No.
                            The kernel people stabilize every release, that's not what I asked for.

                            Every once in a while (lets say every about every 6 monts) there is a driver version, that seems to work for most people quite good, but as always there are some issues.

                            Take 7.11 for example, that seemed to work for most people, but it has bugs, that simply prevents it from going stable on some distros, like the soname bug. I guess that one is not a really big deal, 7.12 fixed it. Now for most people 7.12 was a disappointment, because if the resolution bug and various other issues. If now ATI would backport the soname fix (maybe a few others), that are known to not open one of the new bugs, that 7.12 has, there would be a more stable 7.11, maybe one, that most distros could use as a stable driver.
                            Now as I said, not every driver version has to get fixes, obviously 8.42.3 and 8.41.7 were not good enough to deserve a living beyond there release.

                            Would it really be that hard, to maintain (in addition to the normal release) lets say two branches, that are known to be worth maintaining?
                            I don't think, that someone would really care if they get dropped after a year (I mean, who cares about 8.36 or 8.30 these days?).
                            and what about 8.28? :-P the last one for r200 chipsets :-)

                            but I think they don't have enough manpower to do what you suggest...

                            but let's see what they say :-)

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Berniyh View Post
                              Yes, and No.
                              The kernel people stabilize every release, that's not what I asked for.

                              Every once in a while (lets say every about every 6 monts) there is a driver version, that seems to work for most people quite good, but as always there are some issues.

                              Take 7.11 for example, that seemed to work for most people, but it has bugs, that simply prevents it from going stable on some distros, like the soname bug. I guess that one is not a really big deal, 7.12 fixed it. Now for most people 7.12 was a disappointment, because if the resolution bug and various other issues. If now ATI would backport the soname fix (maybe a few others), that are known to not open one of the new bugs, that 7.12 has, there would be a more stable 7.11, maybe one, that most distros could use as a stable driver.
                              Now as I said, not every driver version has to get fixes, obviously 8.42.3 and 8.41.7 were not good enough to deserve a living beyond there release.

                              Would it really be that hard, to maintain (in addition to the normal release) lets say two branches, that are known to be worth maintaining?
                              I don't think, that someone would really care if they get dropped after a year (I mean, who cares about 8.36 or 8.30 these days?).
                              to me the idea is not good. your idea would split the development more, than actually focusing it. having different driver versions to maintain is stupid. if i were to choose how to set the development schedule, i'd say:
                              1. ok for monthly releases of patches for open bugs and compatibility with new software versions.
                              2. immediate retirement of patches that cause regressions in the driver
                              3. 2 major releases twice a year with new features.
                              so the schedule would be:
                              on june the driver would be released with schedule for the 15th of the month. the second major release with new features would came on 23rd of december as a christmass present.
                              the other months of the year the driver would remain as is and will only get monthly patches if they would correct bugs. otherwise there wouldn't be any patch released. this new type of development that amd has adopted is somehow stupid and useless. the differences between 7.10 and 7.11 have been only in the known bugs actually.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by givemesugarr View Post
                                to me the idea is not good. your idea would split the development more, than actually focusing it. having different driver versions to maintain is stupid. if i were to choose how to set the development schedule, i'd say:
                                1. ok for monthly releases of patches for open bugs and compatibility with new software versions.
                                2. immediate retirement of patches that cause regressions in the driver
                                3. 2 major releases twice a year with new features.
                                so the schedule would be:
                                on june the driver would be released with schedule for the 15th of the month. the second major release with new features would came on 23rd of december as a christmass present.
                                the other months of the year the driver would remain as is and will only get monthly patches if they would correct bugs. otherwise there wouldn't be any patch released. this new type of development that amd has adopted is somehow stupid and useless. the differences between 7.10 and 7.11 have been only in the known bugs actually.
                                What you are suggesting is exactly the same, you just name it differently.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X