Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Wants YOUR Linux Questions, Feedback

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

  • Intel Wants YOUR Linux Questions, Feedback

    Phoronix: Intel Wants YOUR Linux Questions, Feedback

    Intel's Linux graphics team is seeking any questions or feedback that Phoronix readers have concerning their open-source Linux graphics driver stack...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA0MjI

  • #2
    and not the notorious Poulsbo or now the Medfield situation
    That unfair.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post
      That unfair.
      Those drivers are developed by a different team, within a different group, in a different way, with different goals and are completely different from our Gen drivers... so it wouldn't be fair for me to answer anything on their behalf.

      Comment


      • #4
        Cart before the horse

        Background: Intel seems to introduce video products before stable support is available. I got caught in that with 4500HD, which had great reviews (even here on Phoronix), but was actually too unstable to use. I ended up getting a standalone GPU, even though I didn't need the additional performance. I've since avoided Intel graphics on all subsequent purchases.

        Question: What is Intel doing to insure that drivers and support are available for products at introduction in Linux, not a year or two later?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by macemoneta View Post
          Question: What is Intel doing to insure that drivers and support are available for products at introduction in Linux, not a year or two later?
          I am not sure if I got your question correctly, but as Michael has already covered in several articles here on phoronix, Ivy Bridge was fully supported on Linux, in upstream versions of Kernel, Mesa, xf86-video-intel and so on, around 1 year prior to its launch.

          For the future graphics adapters, I won't disclose much details, but we expect to improve the pace even a bit further.

          Comment


          • #6
            There were some bugs

            There was a graphics test for Fedora 16 in which I participated, I had a pretty old notebook with Intel integrated graphics(128 MB Video) i945. I found some bugs when I did this test but the reporting was to complicated. I wasn't able to report if I did not have a Fedora Wiki account which needed some license agreement and waiting for manual confirmation. My point is that Intel integrated graphics might have a lot of bugs but u maybe don't know about them yet... My problems were that it wasn't displaying the 3d models correctly, were glitchy, instead of seeing a ball for example, I was seeing only a few pixels from 1 surface. That problem was in 2 or 3 tests from something like 10.

            Comment


            • #7
              OpenCL?

              Since the new gpus come from a third party there is poor opensource support, is there any plan to fix this introducing new intel gpus that could be supported?
              Any plan to support opencl on existing or future gpus?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by eugeni_dodonov View Post
                I am not sure if I got your question correctly, but as Michael has already covered in several articles here on phoronix, Ivy Bridge was fully supported on Linux, in upstream versions of Kernel, Mesa, xf86-video-intel and so on, around 1 year prior to its launch.

                For the future graphics adapters, I won't disclose much details, but we expect to improve the pace even a bit further.
                There's a difference between supported and usable. The 4500HD was supported, not usable at introduction. Are you saying that Ivy Bridge and subsequent GPUs are expected to be fully usable at introduction going forward?

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm interested in the following questions:

                  1) What exactly is RC6?
                  2) Why does it repeatedly turn out to be non-functional? Is it some unforeseen incompatibility on Intel's side? Are there some BIOS bugs to work around?
                  3) Can we expect universal support for RC6 (and/or semaphores) in the future?
                  4) Whereas Intel's integrated graphics are not really competitive in the performance segment, they are vastly ahead regarding power efficiency. Can we expect further driver improvement in that regard?
                  5) Will we get S3TC?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    When can we expect OpenGL 3.3 support on Sandy Bridge?

                    When do you expect to have OpenGL 4.2 support on Ivy Bridge?

                    What is the status of OpenCL support on Ivy Bridge?

                    Will native CUDA support be introduced for Ivy Bridge or will CUDA code continue to require GPU Ocelot:

                    http://code.google.com/p/gpuocelot/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thanks for answering these questions

                      On the desktop I use discrete graphics from that other company that isn't spelled with 3-letters, but I use good ol' fashioned 4500HD graphics on a core 2 notebook and they do pretty nicely with KDE. I even do HD audio + video out over HDMI to my TV and it works out of the box on a composited desktop.

                      My question to you is more related to future graphics. I know you can't go into detail about the capabilities of IB and Haswell, but I was wondering about: 1. If you can give any predictions about how Wayland will develop alongside Intel products in the future, and 2. If you have any idea about getting QuickSync support in the existing Sandy Bridge systems working under Linux (If QuickSync is unrelated to your work then I apologize for being off-topic).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by eugeni_dodonov View Post
                        Those drivers are developed by a different team, within a different group, in a different way, with different goals and are completely different from our Gen drivers... so it wouldn't be fair for me to answer anything on their behalf.
                        It's unfortunate that Intel decides to package a 32-bit only blob that only works with kernels and X servers that are several major versions behind, and buries it on their Downloads site. Then when you do go to download it, you also find Windows executables in the bundle.

                        Those PowerVR blobs reek, it has made me suggest AMD systems to people simply so they'll know that it works on mobile systems with anything but Vista7: Crippleware Edition.


                        Seriously, how are you supposed to know what you're buying when Intel has a nasty habit of pairing Atom CPUs with PowerVR SGX crap and doesn't provide anything to differentiate itself from real Intel graphics chipsets? Your company ought to be ashamed of itself, not only for the PowerVR nightmare, but for knowingly putting something in that only really works with a version of Windows Microsoft gives out for free but cripples to the point that the only thing the user can do with it is buy a more expensive edition.
                        Last edited by DaemonFC; 01-12-2012, 10:29 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          What is the state of libva support for the Ironlake chipsets? What kernel started support for it? What does support depend on? What's the future of libva products at Intel? (are all new chips going to get it?) what about quicksync on linux?

                          What about Ironlake's 3D graphics? I bought a dell laptop that came with Ubuntu 10.04, but so far it seems to barely have any OpenGL support (i can play some simple games, but I can only use compositing with Xfce4, which makes me think something isn't quite up).

                          Otherwise, been happy with the Intel drivers, except for the i810 drivers. but I retired my i810 device last year, so...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I've got an i965-based ThinkPad laptop I'm getting ready to End-of-Life. I think its GPU is supported about as well as it's ever gonna be on Linux, which is to say, not well (but there isn't all that much hardware there to utilize, anyway).

                            But I remember the days when I had this laptop when EXA was new... before KMS, before DRI2, before UXA, way before SNA... even the 2D performance was slow as a slug, and even the most trivial 3D would cause random graphical corruption and kernel lockups. Enduring years of this while trying to use the laptop for things like taking notes in college and getting actual work done left a very bad taste in my mouth about Intel hardware and Linux support. It will take a completely 180 degree experience from this to change my mind on the quality of Intel products, and especially their Linux support.

                            I usually buy new laptops when the underlying platform is brand new, to maximize the time I'll have the machine while it's still new. With that knowledge, and the knowledge that I'd like to run GNU/Linux as my primary operating system, what are the chances that I can buy an Ivy Bridge based ThinkPad right out of the product launch gate and enjoy such cutting-edge features as working 3d compositing, 2D without visually-perceivable slow rendering, and perhaps even light OpenGL 2.1 games? Stuff like Trine or Second Life, not like Unigine Heaven.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Ironlake? Webgl?

                              First of all, it's awesome to see Intel putting such development effort into open-source drivers. My experience in the linux world has been mostly frustrating as regards official driver support, so thank you!

                              Most of the news lately has been about Sandy/Ivy bridge support. I have Ironlake graphics.

                              - What is the status of OpenGL3 support for Ironlake in Mesa 8.0?
                              - Is any attention being paid to making SNA acceleration more stable on Ironlake?
                              - What other significant improvements or changes can Ironlake users expect?
                              - I have been working for a year to get WebGL working properly on my machine. Apparently Chromium will not support Mesa >7.9, while Firefox 9 blacklists my driver for unknown reasons. I can override the blacklist in FF, but performance is too poor to be useful. Is there anything that can be done on the Intel / driver side to improve WebGl support in these browers?
                              - What is the relationship between OpenGL 3, 4, etc. support and WebGL?

                              Thanks again.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X