Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

XvMC support

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

  • "If you are trying to get me to say that UVD support in fglrx has taken longer than I guessed in January, I have no problem saying that."

    not in the lease Bridgeman, dont take it like that, you are one of the good guys, and i welcome all your feedback to the community, and you do listen to us, and feed that back inhouse, and thats key, and a good thing.

    its just yet again im on the lookout for yet another HD Video upgrade for a beagleboard and Genesi board, both considered embedded applications , but they are also a general purpose PC able to run a generic linux too and FFMPEG and other AVC related code
    Last edited by popper; 07-17-2009, 10:26 PM.

    Comment


    • ati is just ruining it's reputation

      just don't say there will be support when there is no timeline and anything
      it's almost like ati lied
      you can say what you want about how it was anounced but what matters is the image that will stay in people mind.
      And for me as a user it's pretty bad ...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by mirak63 View Post
        ati is just ruining it's reputation

        just don't say there will be support when there is no timeline and anything
        it's almost like ati lied
        you can say what you want about how it was anounced but what matters is the image that will stay in people mind.
        And for me as a user it's pretty bad ...
        I think you just can't read that right. You have clear message: SOMETIME, NOT SOON. It really means you shouldn't have any expectations about that, and you can wait years for that to appear. Just take it as I said.

        Would you prefer AMD to not even mention open source UVD? Now we at least know it's possible (could be not, because of some patents).

        I'm happy with informations from Bridgman and I'm not frustrated. I just don't belive in more than he wrote.

        Comment


        • at the time I bought a hd4850 ATI was claiming linux support, and also UVD support was announced.

          now we know what it was worth

          It's not about bridgman here, however I think the less ati talks about things that ati can't support right now or officialy at some point, the less arm it will do for ati image.

          And probably phoronix didn't do anygood by anouncing stuffs based on the fact some lib was seen in some binary

          Comment


          • Originally posted by mirak63 View Post
            at the time I bought a hd4850 ATI was claiming linux support, and also UVD support was announced.

            now we know what it was worth

            It's not about bridgman here, however I think the less ati talks about things that ati can't support right now or officialy at some point, the less arm it will do for ati image.

            And probably phoronix didn't do anygood by anouncing stuffs based on the fact some lib was seen in some binary
            That explains your disappointment, but as you noticed by yourself, that has nothing to Bridgman's information. Where did you read this UVD announcement actually?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Zajec View Post
              That explains your disappointment, but as you noticed by yourself, that has nothing to Bridgman's information. Where did you read this UVD announcement actually?
              I would like a copy as well, please

              The only UVD-related announcement we made was the statement that we did *not* (and I stress *not*) plan to open up UVD, however I did commit to looking into whether it was possible after we had the other core functionality in place.

              On the fglrx side, Michael drew some perfectly reasonable conclusions from what he saw in the driver binaries and heard from his contacts around the industry; even if things didn't work out that way this time in general his guesses are quite good.

              If you're saying that we should have hidden the work-in-process XvBA code better so that people would not speculate maybe that's fair. If you're saying that we should have taken legal action to stop people from publicly speculating, that's not the way we like to do things.
              Last edited by bridgman; 07-18-2009, 11:04 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                If you're saying that we should have hidden the work-in-process XvBA code better so that people would not speculate maybe that's fair. If you're saying that we should have taken legal action to stop people from publicly speculating, that's not the way we like to do things.
                He might be saying that, but I'm definitely not. I think the work in progress code should be made available in a public git so that we can --see-- what work is being done. This is the only way to make it fair. If we could see the code then there wouldnt be any speculation.

                Comment


                • The fglrx drivers are not open-source, so putting the code in a public git is not really an option.

                  Comment


                  • The lib is there, just not the headers. What would be hidden in the headers?!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Kano View Post
                      The lib is there, just not the headers. What would be hidden in the headers?!
                      An implicit commitment to continue supporting the interface?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                        The fglrx drivers are not open-source, so putting the code in a public git is not really an option.
                        And that is exactly what the problem is. Putting that code in the public under an open source agreement would solve this issue once and for all.

                        Comment


                        • Sure, but if we could do that then we would have already released the information to the open source development community.

                          Comment


                          • I understand completely. I can only wish that the right thing be done, but just like with everything else there is always some excuse as to why it cant be done. Its OK though, maybe someday when the content industry fails they'll realize they've been doing it all wrong, and give you guys the opportunity to finally document the technology they've been trying to push all along.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X