Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel's Mesa Team Has Grown About 10x In Three Years

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

  • Intel's Mesa Team Has Grown About 10x In Three Years

    Phoronix: Intel's Mesa Team Has Grown About 10x In Three Years

    When it comes to open-source Linux graphics drivers, Intel is the company most committed to their success. Intel exclusively offers their Linux graphics support through a fully open-source stack while AMD and NVIDIA are mostly focused on their proprietary graphics drivers. AMD does have a handful of employees devoted to their open-source driver while NVIDIA dedicates no one and leaves it up to the Nouveau community for reverse-engineering...

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

  • #2
    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    Phoronix: Intel's Mesa Team Has Grown About 10x In Three Years

    When it comes to open-source Linux graphics drivers, Intel is the company most committed to their success. Intel exclusively offers their Linux graphics support through a fully open-source stack while AMD and NVIDIA are mostly focused on their proprietary graphics drivers. AMD does have a handful of employees devoted to their open-source driver while NVIDIA dedicates no one and leaves it up to the Nouveau community for reverse-engineering...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQzOTE
    All we can say in favor of NVIDIA is that they haven't sued the poor folks reverse engineering their stuff.

    I am so glad to see a company getting Linux support right (and it certainly will pay off in the upcoming, Linux-centric mobile future). My money goes where my mouth speaks, and I switched to a Haswell based build for my home Desktop.

    Cheers!

    Comment


    • #3
      We want an Android phone with 100% FOSS drivers
      ## VGA ##
      AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
      Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
        We want an Android phone with 100% FOSS drivers
        Have a look at the OpenPhoenux project, in combination with Replicant.
        It's not quite ready for the mass market, but going into the right direction, fullfilling your demands.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
          We want an Android phone with 100% FOSS drivers
          we have a FOSS Android Clone... by the FSF

          Comment


          • #6
            opengl 3.2?

            since when? what i know is only 3.1 partial 3.2/3.3
            Last edited by Andrecorreia; 08-17-2013, 07:42 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
              We want an Android phone with 100% FOSS drivers
              Replicant

              Originally posted by Andrecorreia View Post
              since when? what i now is only 3.1 partial 3.2/3.3
              Yupp, seems not 3.2 or or 3.3 yet.
              http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/tree/docs/GL3.txt

              Comment


              • #8
                One thing I have been wondering about...How many of the company employed people working on mesa, works from a remote location?

                Comment


                • #9
                  AMD should take notes from Intel. Proprietary drivers don't make sense.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by xeekei View Post
                    AMD should take notes from Intel. Proprietary drivers don't make sense.
                    Unless you mean Nvidia that statement makes absolutely no sense. It's not exactly like AMD can just stop making the proprietary driver and throw it's weight completely behind the open source driver, they still need to provide the proprietary driver for the time being for both Windows and for the Workstation users for whom they're actually doing the proprietary drivers on linux for, meanwhile they've been working on bringing up an opensource driver stack which until recently wasn't really capable of replacing the proprietary drivers for most users due to lacking proper dynamic power management and the 3D performance being poor and even today none of the drivers are compatible with the latest openGL spec, and openCL last I heard was still a WIP. As a result of all of that they still really can't switch their workstation market over to using the opensource drivers and even then unless they switch over their windows driver to being based on the opensource ones it's not like they can exactly throw most of their effort behind it. Whatever happens though my guess would be they're a few years away from being capable of switching and even then it's a question as to whether they will or not.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by xeekei View Post
                      AMD should take notes from Intel. Proprietary drivers don't make sense.
                      They do make sense for AMD, since they don't have enough development resources to have full open-source support on new GPU generation launches.

                      Originally posted by phoronix
                      AMD (is) mostly focused on their proprietary graphics drivers
                      Really? It seems like they make minimal effort to get their Windows driver working on Linux and most of the Linux development resources go to open-source. Is bridgman around to give a head count (probably has before for)?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        How about assembling a GLSL team?

                        Hey Intel,

                        I know I'm only on the outside looking in, but it appears that of all the features, GLSL is either the hardest to implement, or takes the most time for piglit/etc verifications, the most in-depth; I don't know what would be the proper way to describe how it looks from out here.

                        But It seems like GLSL 3.2 and 3.3 have been "in progress" fffffoooooorrrrreeeevvvveeeerrr, so why not keep whomever is the core development team for MESA GLSL on GLSL - when they get done with 3.2 and 3.3, in light of the Fred Brooks problem, put them right on GLSL 4.0.

                        When the GLSL team is done with GLSL 4.0, put them on GLSL 4.1.(Skipping the rest of the OpenGL features)

                        When done, put them on GLSL 4.2.

                        When done, put them on GLSL 4.3.

                        Then GLSL 4.4.

                        Then GLSL 4.5. (Yes, I know it doesn't exist yet. But it probably will by the time all these other GLSLs are done)

                        Just a random thought from a complete outsider looking in. A dedicated GLSL Mesa team seems to make a lot of sense. The rest of the features will catch up.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing View Post
                          Hey Intel,

                          I know I'm only on the outside looking in, but it appears that of all the features, GLSL is either the hardest to implement, or takes the most time for piglit/etc verifications, the most in-depth; I don't know what would be the proper way to describe how it looks from out here.

                          But It seems like GLSL 3.2 and 3.3 have been "in progress" fffffoooooorrrrreeeevvvveeeerrr, so why not keep whomever is the core development team for MESA GLSL on GLSL - when they get done with 3.2 and 3.3, in light of the Fred Brooks problem, put them right on GLSL 4.0.

                          When the GLSL team is done with GLSL 4.0, put them on GLSL 4.1.(Skipping the rest of the OpenGL features)

                          When done, put them on GLSL 4.2.

                          When done, put them on GLSL 4.3.

                          Then GLSL 4.4.

                          Then GLSL 4.5. (Yes, I know it doesn't exist yet. But it probably will by the time all these other GLSLs are done)

                          Just a random thought from a complete outsider looking in. A dedicated GLSL Mesa team seems to make a lot of sense. The rest of the features will catch up.
                          Ehh, GLSL features are pretty much done through 4.2 already, with the shader pack 420 extension already present in Mesa 9.2. The current holdup on 3.2 isn't the GLSL part, it's implementing all the piglit tests for geometry shaders and the i965 backend. Same is going to be true of 4.0 in a few months - it won't be the GLSL support holding it back, but core/driver functionality like fp64 support. Adding that to GLSL will be easy.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hmm ...

                            They may have grown a lot, yet they still seem to ignore almost all bug-reports filed at freedeskop's bugzilla, whereas a bug filed against the intel-ddx is usually fixed in a day or two by Intel's SNA hacker chris wilson...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                              Unless you mean Nvidia that statement makes absolutely no sense. It's not exactly like AMD can just stop making the proprietary driver and throw it's weight completely behind the open source driver, they still need to provide the proprietary driver for the time being for both Windows and for the Workstation users for whom they're actually doing the proprietary drivers on linux for, meanwhile they've been working on bringing up an opensource driver stack which until recently wasn't really capable of replacing the proprietary drivers for most users due to lacking proper dynamic power management and the 3D performance being poor and even today none of the drivers are compatible with the latest openGL spec, and openCL last I heard was still a WIP. As a result of all of that they still really can't switch their workstation market over to using the opensource drivers and even then unless they switch over their windows driver to being based on the opensource ones it's not like they can exactly throw most of their effort behind it. Whatever happens though my guess would be they're a few years away from being capable of switching and even then it's a question as to whether they will or not.
                              Only having a single open source driver do make more sense. Of course as things are right now they can't just drop the proprietary one over night. My statement was more general, there's no reason to keep drivers proprietary. They are hardware specific anyway, and the hardware is proprietary.

                              And it's not like they put much effort into their proprietary Linux driver anyway.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X