Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2013: A Good Year For Open-Source AMD?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Tgui View Post
    Hows that possible? Canadian types are the most agreeable people on the planet. I could spit in your face and then you would certainly thank me for the human contact.
    How many canadians do you need to screw the bulb in? Whole country?

    // Sorry, enough pointless talking.

    Comment


    • #17
      How much different ideas have I thrown into Bridgeman camp? 1, 2, 3, 4? No, they are perfectly satisfied with the overall progress. At this rate R800 support will match catalyst in 2017, remember this.
      The usual problem with OSS projects.
      Many guys have THE idea to bring the project forward, but usually those guys don't have the knowledge to implement it themself and the are angry, because their idea (beeing good or bad) isn't considered.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Linuxhippy View Post
        The usual problem with OSS projects.
        Many guys have THE idea to bring the project forward, but usually those guys don't have the knowledge to implement it themself and the are angry, because their idea (beeing good or bad) isn't considered.
        No, no. Many guys have many different possibilities. Some have knowledge. Some can bug-test. Some can write review. Some can send cards. Some can purchase cards. Some can do marketing. Some can help rise the funds. Some can just cheer up. If the project is good and is liked by people, there is a ton of energy behind it.

        Right now, efforts to:

        report driver usage statistic back to hardware HQ
        improve the driver by means of optimization
        create ANY research on buyers behaviour in linux segment
        collect funds for the above
        create anything centralized

        have been blocked via chicken/egg problem shift or ignored.

        You offer to create all this on our own, aside from AMD, perhaps we should. I don't know. But this would mean they are definitely incapable of writing their own drivers (who cares if it will work).
        And we will also depend on them for hardware/documentation side, meaning they would control everything. Yet they don't step in. That's another thing, I don't understand - denial to innovate on linux side.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
          What would you do in my shoes, when somebody offers to go opensource (1),
          clearly knows the shortcomings of development speed (which make the solution completely unattractive) (2),
          and denies ANY attempt to improve the situation or withdraws himself from that (3). Huh?
          "go opensource" obviously means different things to different people. We said we would "support open source development efforts", ie provide documentation and/or sample code, provide a couple of developers to help with the work, and provide support to other developers by taking questions into our engineering groups on their behalf and providing answers where possible. You're obviously looking for something more, which is a fair request but not what we said we would do.

          Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
          How much different ideas have I thrown into Bridgeman camp? 1, 2, 3, 4? No, they are perfectly satisfied with the overall progress. At this rate R800 support will match catalyst in 2017, remember this.
          Going from memory, I believe you provided two ideas.

          1. An online registration form at amd.com where users could indicate whether they used open source or Catalyst drivers, with the hope being that responses would divert funds from Catalyst to open source. My response to this, which you ignored, was that we couldn't divert funds from the Catalyst Linux driver without hurting its usefulness for it's target market (3D workstation) and so the chances of it increasing funding for in-house open source development seemed very low (the risk of it *reducing* funding seemed higher).

          2. One or more kickstarter-type projects aimed at specific improvements in the open source stack, whether driver-specific or generic. My response to this was essentially "seems like a good idea" but you seemed to be suggesting that AMD had to set those projects up and I never understood your reasoning for that.

          Currently the proprietary drivers (all of them AFAIK) replace a lot of the open source graphics stack with proprietary interfaces. Until similar improvements are made in the generic open source framework, which *will* take a fair amount of time and effort, there will be gaps between open source and proprietary stacks. I am agitating internally for our proprietary driver folks to help where they can by pushing enhancements into the common framework where possible, and should know the outcome in early 2013.

          Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
          Mind you, I purchased two radeon cards for sake of opensource, the second dive was better, like going from completely unusable and crashing into slow as a fck. In two years. For same gen. Should I report that as bug?
          If you are seeing "typical" performance deltas between open and Catalyst that is probably not worth reporting as a bug. If a specific app is behaving much slower than other comparable apps on the same driver that probably is worth reporting.

          Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
          But the devs are already 101% busy, doing 1000x job which is perfect in Bridgeman's opinion. He thinks the formula is perfect, there is no need to correct anything, but I beg to differ.
          I don't know where you get this. What I have said is "this is the current plan, and we think it makes best use of the current budget we have to work with", which is *very* different from what you are saying.

          Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
          Remember, no external help is appreciated.
          Huh ? Are you talking about external help as in developers & testers, or external help in the form of criticism and abuse ?

          Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
          Btw, first radeon (R100) is broken completely (KMS). I may upload errata soon, if someone cares (even for the sake of "radeon feature").
          Probably worth filing (agd5f will know for sure) but only with complete system info. My understanding is that KMS needs a somewhat different set of system-specific quirks from UMS and that there probably are still some systems which have problems. agd5f and others are looking into the problems as they are identified, but I believe we are already at the point where most of the fixes have to be done "blind" because the problems can't be reproduced in house.

          Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
          Honestly, I'm not sure that raising frame rates from 113 fps to 400+ fps is the best thing for developers to be working on. I would rather see attention on the slowest apps (eg Warsow) first.

          Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
          If Radeon driver Kickstarter project eventually gets rolling, that would be first ray of light.

          Where does my attitude towards gfx hardware and linux differs in general from that of Bridgeman? I don't consider Linux and GNU to be "construction yard of broken parts", I consider them to be an operating system.
          Nor do I, does that mean we agree ? Where do you get these statements from anyways, they're certainly nothing I ever said.

          Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
          If the hardware is proprietary and works - fine, ok, usable.
          If it is opensource and broken and company is really in to fix it, taking everything from the community, maximizing the effort - even better. How to see it? Compare the development rate and attitude.
          I don't understand what you are saying here. Other than your specific suggestions, what do you think we are not taking from the community and where do you think we are not maximizing the effort ? Do you think the development rate is out of whack relative to number of developers ? Do you believe there is an attitude problem in the development community ?

          Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
          The case with AMD? Opensource, broken and don't bother.

          The thing is, you DO NEED to pay to even test AMD driver because you need hardware. Multiply this by complete disinterest from their side and you have the idea.
          Usual question -- by "complete disinterest" do you mean "bridgman didn't agree with your suggestions" or something more ?

          Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
          Why should I pay in this case? There are a lot of broken opensource projects, whose developers do not care about it(they even state it so). For me, such project belong to trash bin.
          Have developers on the open source graphics drivers stated they do not care about it, or are you just talking about your own interpretation ?
          Last edited by bridgman; 05-24-2012, 04:51 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
            No, no. Many guys have many different possibilities. Some have knowledge. Some can bug-test. Some can write review. Some can send cards. Some can purchase cards. Some can do marketing. Some can help rise the funds. Some can just cheer up. If the project is good and is liked by people, there is a ton of energy behind it.

            Right now, efforts to:

            report driver usage statistic back to hardware HQ
            improve the driver by means of optimization
            create ANY research on buyers behaviour in linux segment
            collect funds for the above
            create anything centralized

            have been blocked via chicken/egg problem shift or ignored.
            Sorry, but none of these have been blocked or ignored. You're writing as if *you* tried to do something and *we* blocked it, which is not the case at all.

            If you're saying "hey I posted in a forum that AMD should do all these things and one of their guys thought what they were doing today was a better use of the people they had" that's probably fair.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by bridgman View Post
              "go opensource" obviously means different things to different people. We said we would "support open source development efforts", ie provide documentation and/or sample code, provide a couple of developers to help with the work, and provide support to other developers by taking questions into our engineering groups on their behalf and providing answers where possible. You're obviously looking for something more, which is a fair request but not what we said we would do.
              I'm perfectly fine with that.

              On the other hand, are there any ideas how to attract more developers to contribute the open graphics stack?
              Of course I can only speak for myself and I consider the threshold to enter this "business" to be really high.
              To be honest, I wouldn't even know where to start. Reading the specs? Start to understand the available code first?

              Lowering this threshold by some introductions and tutorials would be great imho.
              Not sure the current devs agree. After all someone would need to write them.

              Those blog posts by Alex were worth a read.
              http://www.botchco.com/agd5f/?p=50
              http://www.botchco.com/agd5f/?p=51
              http://www.botchco.com/agd5f/?p=52

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Tgui View Post
                Hows that possible? Canadian types are the most agreeable people on the planet. I could spit in your face and then you would certainly thank me for the human contact.
                I'm half German and half Irish. With a bit of effort, I can disagree with anyone on the planet
                Last edited by bridgman; 05-24-2012, 05:36 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Don't buy high-end hardware?

                  "I've said this a few times over the years so hopefully this won't come as a surprise, but I wouldn't be buying high end cards yet if I was only planning on using them with the open source drivers, even if I could magically run the Intel open source stack on AMD or NVidia hardware."
                  This must be a joke. I can't think anything else.
                  Of course I understand that with limited developing capacities you can't have any feature of new graphics cards at release time, at least currently. May be better in the future.
                  But this comment is a slap in the face of anyone that owns, like me, a laptop with the 2008 released HD3200. I am still not able to use the open source drivers on this four years old hardware, which is neither high-end nor nor a recently released GPU, just because it overheats my machine and sucks out the battery in no-time. I don't care about performance or feature completeness, as long as something that is such basic for a mobile machine as power-consumption has issues that are known for a long time and are still not resolved.
                  Basically this means to me: If you want to buy AMD and use open-source you have to find the few GPUs that are working correctly. That is a serious show-stopper.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Nille View Post
                    Q since when are you a AMD Hater. In the past you was the biggest AMD Fanboy in the forum and now you make a 180 turn.
                    I'm not a AMD Hater its just so SAD... and the "Bridgman" "Rhetoric" makes me ILL.

                    how can anyone with a brain stand it? ?

                    its complete bullshit

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by TobiSGD View Post
                      This must be a joke. I can't think anything else.
                      Of course I understand that with limited developing capacities you can't have any feature of new graphics cards at release time, at least currently. May be better in the future.
                      But this comment is a slap in the face of anyone that owns, like me, a laptop with the 2008 released HD3200. I am still not able to use the open source drivers on this four years old hardware, which is neither high-end nor nor a recently released GPU, just because it overheats my machine and sucks out the battery in no-time. I don't care about performance or feature completeness, as long as something that is such basic for a mobile machine as power-consumption has issues that are known for a long time and are still not resolved.
                      Basically this means to me: If you want to buy AMD and use open-source you have to find the few GPUs that are working correctly. That is a serious show-stopper.
                      I will remind here that AMD never ever promised that will write the open-source driver by itself. They just provide docs. Its cards are meant to be used with Catalyst to fully use them. If catalyst doesn't work feel free to holler at them or buy an nvidia. But nagging about open-souce support is useless.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Gallium3D

                        bridgman: If the 2D DDX based on Gallium3D works well, are there plans to backport it to VLIW4 (Trinity) based architectures?
                        Do you plan to take advantage of Trinitys UMA based nature?

                        Also, could you please elabortate a bit what the current state of 2D acceleration of Catalyst is?
                        There have been some articles on phoronix about some magical switch to turn on a new acceleration architecture, but beside some disappointing benchmark results and rendering corruptions, nothing new has been posted here on phoronix.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TobiSGD View Post
                          I am still not able to use the open source drivers on this four years old hardware, which is neither high-end nor nor a recently released GPU, just because it overheats my machine and sucks out the battery in no-time. I don't care about performance or feature completeness, as long as something that is such basic for a mobile machine as power-consumption has issues that are known for a long time and are still not resolved.
                          Are you sure you are enabling power profiles ? Which profile are you using -- either mid or low should be OK on most HD3200 systems.

                          http://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature#...gement_Options

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                            Are you sure you are enabling power profiles ? Which profile are you using -- either mid or low should be OK on most HD3200 systems.

                            http://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature#...gement_Options
                            I have tried it with the both profiles, but that doesn't help a single bit, the machine still is hot and power-consumption is far to high for mobile use. I wouldn't care, since it works fine with Catalyst, but AFAIK the support from Catalyst for this card will be dropped in the near future, basically rendering this (2 1/2 years old) machine useless.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Linuxhippy View Post
                              bridgman: If the 2D DDX based on Gallium3D works well, are there plans to backport it to VLIW4 (Trinity) based architectures?
                              I guess it depends on how well it works

                              Seriously, other than maybe some bug fixing I don't *think* there should be any backporting required. We haven't really discussed it internally but I expect we would want it to work on Trinity as well.

                              Originally posted by Linuxhippy View Post
                              Do you plan to take advantage of Trinitys UMA based nature?
                              Yes and no. Yes in the sense that there is probably the opportunity to eliminate some copies by taking advantage of UMA.

                              No in the sense that (a) I don't think we have done enough experimentation to have a good feeling for added costs of cache flushing and remapping vs saved costs of copying and (b) I don't know if there is any unreleased info required to take advantage of it so (c) we don't have a priority or plan for it yet.

                              I think it's fair to say that at minimum we would do some testing, figure out if any additional programming info is required, and try to get that info released. If the initial testing goes well we would probably try to push out finished code.

                              Note that one of the devs may already be on top of this; it just hasn't bubbled up near the top of the priority stack yet.

                              Originally posted by Linuxhippy View Post
                              Also, could you please elabortate a bit what the current state of 2D acceleration of Catalyst is? There have been some articles on phoronix about some magical switch to turn on a new acceleration architecture, but beside some disappointing benchmark results and rendering corruptions, nothing new has been posted here on phoronix.
                              That's a harder question. I haven't had time to really talk to the Catalyst devs at all in the last few months so most of what I know is what I read online. What I do know (or at least think I know ) is :

                              - the acceleration related to the magical switch (AAA, sometimes referred to (incorrectly) as Direct2D because some of the low level routines were shared with Direct2D) has been enabled by default for a while, maybe a year or more

                              - some additional accel functions have been added for browser accel, but I don't know any details

                              - the variability in results seems to be related to conflicts between triple-buffering (Tear-free desktop) code added to the Catalyst driver and similar functionality in Compiz and other compositors -- too many things were turned on by default so the result was really slow

                              I don't know current state, ie whether compositors or Catalyst have changed defaults or whether tweaking is still required in some cases to get everything playing nice together and not being too conservative. I have seen some "ohmigod it just works" posts but not a huge number so guessing that tweaking is still required at least with some common combinations.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                @bridgman

                                What happened in MUX A+A PowerExpress support beyond Linux Catalyst 11.8?

                                Is there any chance that that PowerExpress support once again become functional soon?

                                I have a laptop where sits unused one HD5650 video card, and I am therefore obliged to use the on-board HD4200. Not really funny because that HD5650 wasn't gratis...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X