Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When'll AMD Opensource Drivers be feature-complete for Evergreen chips

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

  • #46
    I guess AMD probably uses too much licensed IP, intead of developed in house. Among this IP even though the tone here is to hate patents. At least patents are public documents, so you can read it and reverse engineer or design around. AMD's biggest problem are probably Trade Secrets, which can also be licensed, but are worthless if ever published. So in the license agreement there should be a clause stating that AMD would have to pay a heavy penalty if it releases documents (and/or) that teaches someonelse's trade secrets.

    Thus, they are stuck at endlessly trying to write code to talk to a part of the chip without disclosing how it actually works. Don't expect too much.

    Given the current state of affairs, I would rather have them release closed source modules, which would talk to the rest of the open stak and slowly open waterver they feel possible to (noveau does something similar right?). But even then, maybe these can be reverse engineed too...

    Comment


    • #47
      The issue is not a *lot* of third party IP but rather the presence of *any* third party IP unless there are very clear lines between what is 100% ours and what may contain a mix of AMD and third party IP. In many cases the third party IP is just a licensed standard (the audio and video-out areas are lousy with external standards), not actual hardware or software tech.

      The only place this has been a real problem so far was HDMI audio, where the more we investigated the murkier it all became... and that was all related to everyday standards, not what you normally think of as licensed technology. Everywhere else third party IP has just been "one more thing we have to investigate".

      A small closed source module with open source code above and below is so easy to reverse engineer that it might as well be open source unless we invest a lot of time in obfuscation. I would rather spend time getting approval to expose in open source.
      Last edited by bridgman; 02-01-2013, 10:06 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by brent View Post
        I still don't understand why IP review seems to be the biggest overall roadblock with open source driver development in AMD's case. I have never heard of any such problems from Intel developers, and certainly I haven't seen month or even year long delays that could be attributed to legal issues.
        You might want to talk to some of the Intel developers who were active back in 2007-2009. Intel started the process of releasing *code* well before we did (and there was some "waa waa see what Intel is doing" in our initial proposals for code release), but we actually obtained approval to release *documentation* before they did and I'm sure there was a bit of "waa waa see what AMD is doing" discussion inside Intel before their documentation started to flow.

        Other companies just don't say anything until the code/docco/whatever is released. We are trying to be more open but it does have drawbacks as well as benefits.

        Comment


        • #49
          AMD is doing great job with open source drivers. It is obvious especially when you read this kind of news.

          Is there any news about radeonsi working with xorg 1.13? As far as I know there were some problems with glamour and x server 1.13. What is the current state?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by bridgman View Post
            The issue is not a *lot* of third party IP but rather the presence of *any* third party IP unless there are very clear lines between what is 100% ours and what may contain a mix of AMD and third party IP. In many cases the third party IP is just a licensed standard (the audio and video-out areas are lousy with external standards), not actual hardware or software tech.

            The only place this has been a real problem so far was HDMI audio, where the more we investigated the murkier it all became... and that was all related to everyday standards, not what you normally think of as licensed technology. Everywhere else third party IP has just been "one more thing we have to investigate".

            A small closed source module with open source code above and below is so easy to reverse engineer that it might as well be open source unless we invest a lot of time in obfuscation. I would rather spend time getting approval to expose in open source.
            The point I was trying to make is not related to the total amount of third party IP, but the relative amount, i.e., intel has been able to release PM code and hardware video accelaration. I assume this is because those blocks are completely desinged in house or at least contain very little third party IP. Not trying to say here that in house is necessarily better, but it does give more flexbility with regard to open source.

            You are probably right about the small closed source module. But I thought that UVD and PM were right there next to HDMI audio in the queue to get approval to release code. Wouldn't in these cases a "big module" be an alternative?

            Also, maybe you should point out to the AMD execs that Chromebooks are starting to get traction. Samsung, acer, lenovo and now HP are puting out models, and all of them, with the exeption of samsung with "intel inside". So the argument that OEMs are not requesting linux support is getting weaker by the minute... Maybe just not from AMD, I wonder why. It's sad really. I would be all over a kabini chromebook with proper drivers and coreboot. It would trounce anything intel has to offer in the price range.

            I don't even get what's the point of AMD being the "cost effective" solution if it comes with the windows license...

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Rakot View Post
              Is there any news about radeonsi working with xorg 1.13? As far as I know there were some problems with glamour and x server 1.13. What is the current state?
              Latest message on the list:
              http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...ry/000291.html

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Figueiredo View Post
                The point I was trying to make is not related to the total amount of third party IP, but the relative amount, i.e., intel has been able to release PM code and hardware video accelaration. I assume this is because those blocks are completely desinged in house or at least contain very little third party IP.
                Could be, but I think the more likely reason is that their open source efforts have been running uninterrupted for a longer period of time. We had a ~5 year gap after ATI entered the workstation business when it was hoped that the proprietary driver could handle everything. We get a lot of flak for dividing efforts between open source and proprietary drivers but it still seems like the only approach which covers all the bases including high end 3D workstation. Intel has not been in the 3D workstation business so an open-source-only strategy works for them (as it did for us until 2002-ish).

                Originally posted by Figueiredo View Post
                You are probably right about the small closed source module. But I thought that UVD and PM were right there next to HDMI audio in the queue to get approval to release code. Wouldn't in these cases a "big module" be an alternative?
                It wouldn't work for UVD but may be a fallback option for PM. Challenge is that even a big module has a relatively small number of inputs and outputs unless you invest a lot in frustrating reverse engineering efforts and that just seems like a poor use of time if there are alternatives. Note that binary modules are better for hiding "secret software sauce" (eg a spiffy shader compiler) than hiding HW programming info.

                Originally posted by Figueiredo View Post
                Also, maybe you should point out to the AMD execs that Chromebooks are starting to get traction. Samsung, acer, lenovo and now HP are puting out models, and all of them, with the exeption of samsung with "intel inside". So the argument that OEMs are not requesting linux support is getting weaker by the minute...
                Yep, that has been noticed.

                Originally posted by Figueiredo View Post
                I don't even get what's the point of AMD being the "cost effective" solution if it comes with the windows license...
                Being "the cost effective solution" is a fallback. Goal is to kick ass and take names

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                  Being "the cost effective solution" is a fallback. Goal is to kick ass and take names
                  I like the attitude! I really cheer for you guys. I may be a little harsh, but that's probably because I only buy AMD, so I really the feel the pain. BTW, I just bougth a 7850 and made my brother buy a trinity notebok but we are stuck to windows for now. My brazos netbook runs linux but the experience is so much worse than it could be...

                  A little bit offtopic: Does HDMI audio means support for 8 channel LPCM? (that's the only feature I need). Does either frglx or radeon support that?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Figueiredo View Post
                    A little bit offtopic: Does HDMI audio means support for 8 channel LPCM? (that's the only feature I need). Does either frglx or radeon support that?
                    I think the limiting factor right now is the audio driver's ability to generate the bitstream rather than the graphics driver's ability to multiplex the bitstream onto the HDMI audio/video output. Not sure if the graphics driver would be fully ready to handle it but I believe the graphics driver is ahead of the audio driver right now.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                      I think the limiting factor right now is the audio driver's ability to generate the bitstream rather than the graphics driver's ability to multiplex the bitstream onto the HDMI audio/video output. Not sure if the graphics driver would be fully ready to handle it but I believe the graphics driver is ahead of the audio driver right now.
                      Is there hope for TrueHD or DTS-HD audio eventually?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X