Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Radeon UVD Support Merged Into Mesa

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

  • #61
    I'm also eager for UVD 2.0 support

    Originally posted by Ibidem View Post
    Since I have an HD3200M/RS780 chip, I'm eager to hear about UVD2.0 support.
    Particularly annoying is how the "Radeon Feature Matrix" page claims that UVD is Done for R7xx, when it clearly isn't for RV770 and RV790 owners.

    Comment


    • #62
      Status of UVD on RV770/RV790 ?

      Originally posted by chrisr View Post
      Particularly annoying is how the "Radeon Feature Matrix" page claims that UVD is Done for R7xx, when it clearly isn't for RV770 and RV790 owners.
      What's the status of this ?
      Is there news since http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...il/036875.html ?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by monraaf View Post
        What's the status of this ?
        Is there news since http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...il/036875.html ?
        Indeed, would be nice to know if there is any progress on this and RS780/880 support for UVD.

        Comment


        • #64
          One small update...

          Originally posted by monraaf View Post
          What's the status of this ?
          Is there news since http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...il/036875.html ?
          The Xorg feature matrix now includes this footnote:
          DONE for RV710, RV730, RV740, TODO for RV770, RS780/880, R6xx

          Comment


          • #65
            News for old UVD owners, posted today: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...ry/051584.html

            Hi,

            The code for the first generation UVD blocks (RV6xx, RS780, RS880 and
            RV790) is already implemented and I'm only waiting for the OK to release it.

            The only problem is that I don't know if and when we are getting this OK
            for release. Maybe tomorrow, maybe never. It just doesn't has a high
            priority for the reviewer because we don't really sell that old hardware
            any more.

            Cheers,
            Christian.
            Michael, your autobot missed this

            Comment


            • #66
              That's so awesome!

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by curaga View Post
                News for old UVD owners, posted today: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...ry/051584.html

                Hi,

                The code for the first generation UVD blocks (RV6xx, RS780, RS880 and
                RV790) is already implemented and I'm only waiting for the OK to release it.

                The only problem is that I don't know if and when we are getting this OK
                for release. Maybe tomorrow, maybe never. It just doesn't has a high
                priority for the reviewer because we don't really sell that old hardware
                any more.

                Cheers,
                Christian.
                Michael, your autobot missed this
                Mr. König should have a look at what actually is sold. There are still plenty of boards with 7XX and 8XX chipsets out there, sold in masses. And he should take a lesson in marketing (actually, most people at AMD should). This is basically saying: "Hey, we deprecated your stuff, why should we give that any priorities now anymore? Go fuck yourself, buy something new!"

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                  Mr. König should have a look at what actually is sold. There are still plenty of boards with 7XX and 8XX chipsets out there, sold in masses. And he should take a lesson in marketing (actually, most people at AMD should). This is basically saying: "Hey, we deprecated your stuff, why should we give that any priorities now anymore? Go fuck yourself, buy something new!"
                  That's not the entire story. The hw changed significantly between those hw versions and the security implications on that version of the hardware need to be reviewed which is the main reason the review is taking so long. It's the same thing we had to do for newer versions of the hardware.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                    Mr. König should have a look at what actually is sold. There are still plenty of boards with 7XX and 8XX chipsets out there, sold in masses. And he should take a lesson in marketing (actually, most people at AMD should). This is basically saying: "Hey, we deprecated your stuff, why should we give that any priorities now anymore? Go fuck yourself, buy something new!"
                    Please don't promote using marketing speak over telling the truth.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Also, if it turns out that we can't securely release UVD on those asics we may not be able to. Blame DRM. We never said we would release UVD on all asics, we said we look at the possibility of releasing support if we could do it securely.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by agd5f View Post
                        Also, if it turns out that we can't securely release UVD on those asics we may not be able to. Blame DRM. We never said we would release UVD on all asics, we said we look at the possibility of releasing support if we could do it securely.
                        That is basically saying the same: "We deprecated your stuff and we may possibly never give you a feature complete driver. Go fuck yourself, buy something new!"
                        No, I won't blame DRM, I blame AMD, because they sell hardware with abysmal support.

                        Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate your work, my HD6870 works fine with your drivers, as does my HD3200 (except UVD of course), but this is a very good example for AMD's bad decisions in the last years and it really pisses me (and many others) off. That hardware is still sold in masses and getting sub-par support for it is something that is not making AMD friends. For sure, I could use a 2 years old OS and use the blob, but then I would miss out all the fine stuff that happened in the meantime, especially I had to use an ancient kernel.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                          That is basically saying the same: "We deprecated your stuff and we may possibly never give you a feature complete driver. Go fuck yourself, buy something new!"
                          No, I won't blame DRM, I blame AMD, because they sell hardware with abysmal support.

                          Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate your work, my HD6870 works fine with your drivers, as does my HD3200 (except UVD of course), but this is a very good example for AMD's bad decisions in the last years and it really pisses me (and many others) off. That hardware is still sold in masses and getting sub-par support for it is something that is not making AMD friends. For sure, I could use a 2 years old OS and use the blob, but then I would miss out all the fine stuff that happened in the meantime, especially I had to use an ancient kernel.
                          We've always made it very clear that we may not able able to support UVD on all asics in the open source driver due to potential security issues. Releasing the code and potentially getting our DRM implementation hacked and losing our ability to sell into a lot of markets isn't going to benefit anyone.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by agd5f View Post
                            We've always made it very clear that we may not able able to support UVD on all asics in the open source driver due to potential security issues. Releasing the code and potentially getting our DRM implementation hacked and losing our ability to sell into a lot of markets isn't going to benefit anyone.
                            True, but in the case that the hardware can not be supported by the free driver AMD should not have stopped to release proprietary drivers for it, especially when those chips are still the top of the line integrated GPU for their top of the line CPUs.
                            But anyways, this discussion is mood, since it does not lead to anything. Let's just hope that this code gets released and that AMD did not piss off to many customers by this bad move. It is not that they have enough off them that they can afford pissing them off.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Differences between UVD, UVD+ and UVD2...?

                              Originally posted by agd5f View Post
                              Also, if it turns out that we can't securely release UVD on those asics we may not be able to. Blame DRM. We never said we would release UVD on all asics, we said we look at the possibility of releasing support if we could do it securely.
                              The OSS driver supports UVD 2.2 onwards, it would seem. And I was always aware that there might be DRM problems supporting UVD; possibly UVD+ too. But DRM problems with UVD 2?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by chrisr View Post
                                The OSS driver supports UVD 2.2 onwards, it would seem. And I was always aware that there might be DRM problems supporting UVD; possibly UVD+ too. But DRM problems with UVD 2?
                                Despite the numbering, there are actually bigger hw differences between 2 and 2.2 than 1 and 2.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X