Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

3D Optimizations and UVD... AMD_hal.so!

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

  • #31
    sure Bridgman, i just put it up for clarity, and the mention of nvcuvid/vdpau kind of brings us back to the OPs point a closed yet documented binary blob from ATI to do all the things and more that the NV sub API cuda ASIC also does...
    Last edited by popper; 02-05-2009, 07:02 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Kano View Post
      For linux it is vdpau.
      You might be right -- the API looks like it should allow application read access to a VdpVideoSurface.

      VDPAU was already released when folks were still complaining about the lack of a frame-at-a-time decoding API though, and at least one poster mentioned that VDPAU wouldn't work for their application because it was "one way". Doesn't look that way from the API spec though...

      Comment


      • #33
        Well i know that it works with mplayer and xinelib as i use both.

        Comment


        • #34
          Yep, for straight playback I don't think there's any question.

          Popper was talking about frame-at-a-time decode with application read-back in earlier threads, however.

          Comment


          • #35
            yep, the requote i put in the first page
            http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...65&postcount=9
            covered that "frame accurate" app editing point.

            in essence, its the basis for all your AVCHD video edited work flows and the like, its a shame (or perhaps not? if the review fails)the potential AVIVO Encoding/Transcoding/muxing part isnt using the UVD HW, OR IS IT?, or at least the Encoding parts included in some ATI API , something like the Kdenlive HD video editor project http://www.kdenlive.org/ could make very good use of these two parts from inside FFMpeg.

            BTW Carl Eugen Hoyos on the FFmpeg dev list is the one working the VDPAU FFmpeg patchs...
            Last edited by popper; 02-05-2009, 08:10 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by bridgman View Post
              2. If you want Linux market share to grow, enough to drive native app and game development for example, you're going to need things like legal BD playback with the associated DRM support. That implies a bottom-to-top closed source solution; open source drm implementations are being discussed but I don't think anyone has a practical implementation yet. Until the "what does Linux want to become ?" discussions settle down (if ever) I don't think it makes sense to take the driver in a direction (closed source 3D mixed with open source modesetting) where we would have to completely discard in order to deliver a secure legal BD solution.
              All I have to ssay about that is..... Bullshit....

              Whether you guys ;like it at ATi or not DRM --WILL-- be cracked. And despite all the work you guys have put into fighting it, I will be able to watch commercial BD movies on my open source operating system with open source drivers and open source players with out a single line of DRM code.

              It's going to happen.

              Comment


              • #37
                that drm might be cracked does not change the fact that AMD and NVIDIA (and INTEL, Microsoft) are bound by CONTRACTS and associated LAWS.

                Earth to duby229, laws and contracts have to be followed. If you like them or not.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                  All I have to ssay about that is..... Bullshit....

                  Whether you guys ;like it at ATi or not DRM --WILL-- be cracked. And despite all the work you guys have put into fighting it, I will be able to watch commercial BD movies on my open source operating system with open source drivers and open source players with out a single line of DRM code.

                  It's going to happen.

                  Yeah...and since no matter what assasinations are going to happen, I guess the sensible, logical, practical thing to do is to hand guns to everybody.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    yotambien, good ol' America has done that for years now

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by energyman View Post
                      that drm might be cracked does not change the fact that AMD and NVIDIA (and INTEL, Microsoft) are bound by CONTRACTS and associated LAWS.

                      Earth to duby229, laws and contracts have to be followed. If you like them or not.
                      None of which effect the Linux market AT ALL. What ATi NEEDS to do is simply say that we are not interested in providing any support for BD playback on linux. Period. Instead what we will do is release information about our hardware to the public that will enable you to develop your own entirely independent implementation, of which we hold no liability for. Limitations to this documentation include but are not limited to any hardware that is required for restricted playback of protected content. In such cases where that information about that hardware can lead to playback of restricted content it will not be made available.

                      It means that any implementation that is made will be made independently from ATi, and they will have no liability for it. It would be kinda like you hacking into the Iranian Embassy and Novell getting blamed for it because you used there OS....

                      This scenario is entirely possible, and would probably already have happend if ATi would have dropped fglrx year and a half ago.
                      Last edited by duby229; 02-08-2009, 04:29 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by curaga View Post
                        yotambien, good ol' America has done that for years now
                        If everybody in the grocery store was carrying a gun, would you rob it? I didnt think so...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                          None of which effect the Linux market AT ALL. What ATi NEEDS to do is simply say that we are not interested in providing any support for BD playback on linux. Period. Instead what we will do is release information about our hardware to the public that will enable you to develop your own entirely independent implementation, of which we hold no liability for.
                          The risk to AMD/ATI has nothing to do with the independent implementation, unless it publishes reverse engineered information. The risk is that information published or reverse-engineered for use in an independent implementation might *also* be used to attack the content protection paths on other OSes. Without robust content protection on those other OSes, we risk losing a big chunk of sales on those OSes (and those OSes count for maybe 98% of our sales).

                          Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                          Limitations to this documentation include but are not limited to any hardware that is required for restricted playback of protected content. In such cases where that information about that hardware can lead to playback of restricted content it will not be made available.
                          I think that's pretty much what we are doing, isn't it ?

                          Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                          It means that any implementation that is made will be made independently from ATi, and they will have no liability for it. It would be kinda like you hacking into the Iranian Embassy and Novell getting blamed for it because you used there OS....
                          Or, even crazier, a firearms manufacturer being sued because a criminal stole one of their products and used it in a robbery, or an airplane manufacturer being sued because of a pure "pilot error" crashes. Both happen every year.

                          Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                          This scenario is entirely possible, and would probably already have happend if ATi would have dropped fglrx year and a half ago.
                          What does dropping fglrx have to do with it ?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                            The risk to AMD/ATI has nothing to do with the independent implementation, unless it publishes reverse engineered information. The risk is that information published or reverse-engineered for use in an independent implementation might *also* be used to attack the content protection paths on other OSes. Without robust content protection on those other OSes, we risk losing a big chunk of sales on those OSes (and those OSes count for maybe 98% of our sales).
                            Sorry, bridgman. Everything above may be true. However, this is a significant problem for AMD/ATI. It actually means, that some other company (we all know, which one) can actually dictate AMD/ATI what to do and what not to do. Does the AMD/ATI have any plans to be independent or this is the policy of AMD/ATI to always allow this other company to say the final word?

                            p.s. Excuse me for bad English --- it's not my native language.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              That one company has been able to dictate to the PC industry for a long time, long before DRM was a factor. That said, I don't believe that the DRM issues are driven by any company in the PC industry. The companies which create and own the content (aka "Hollywood") dictate how their IP will be protected, and any OS developer who wants to offer legal playback of that content in their major markets needs to follow the rules established by the content owners.

                              The need to follow the content protection rules applies to all OS vendors, not just the biggest one. Linux is one of the (few) exceptions., where a collective decision has been made to forego the ability to provide legal-in-all-markets BD playback even if that results in a reduced market share. I suspect this is why the major distributions plan are not targeting the consumer market, but are trying to make a living selling into (and supporting) enterprise customers, where multimedia capabilities are not so important.
                              Last edited by bridgman; 02-09-2009, 12:13 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                                Does this matter? If someone reverse engineers it, it's not AMD's fault. Publishing reverse engineered specs is illegal.
                                no in german reverse enginnered specs are legal!!!!!


                                in the US Clean-ROOM reverse enginnered specs are LEGAL...

                                in Germany no cleanroom is needet.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X