Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Ports Open-Source Linux Driver To Windows Embedded

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Kano View Post
    so why dont write a complete win/reactos driver
    RectOS driver wow good idea i like it

    Comment


    • #17
      i hope that with this new project the linux driver will get better OGL support and principally better consumption and memory management!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
        Going 100% the open source route without any proprietary sauce means your windows embedded driver won't support UVD, just like the open source Linux driver. I find it hard to believe that you will also leave your windows embedded customers with a crippled driver and device. Unless of course you are developing this driver for a specific device or set of devices that won't require UVD, doubtful though IMO.
        amd do have video acceleration on the GPU with the radeon driver in the pipeline.

        embedded customers are sometimes special maybe they want WebM and the UVD unit can not handle WebM but the shader based radeon solution can handle WebM.

        Comment


        • #19
          "...such as some retail systems, medical devices,..."
          Ya sure, just what I want, Windows* on a Life-Support system... no thx.

          Comment


          • #20
            BTW I stopped being the most prolific poster shortly after Michael raised the edit time limit enough that I didn't have to edit by deleting and re-posting

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Vadi View Post
              I'm sure the GPL whiners are quite happy that the driver will be closed-source due to the permissible MIT license.
              The good thing about this particular situation is that there is very little reason to believe that AMD has any interest in closing the driver and adding secret sauce to it.

              Hopefully this means more manpower working on the driver, which could translate to useful code that can make its way into Mesa/Gallium drivers.

              Comment


              • #22
                The fact is that nothing stops AMD to add support for UVD, and close the driver because of this.
                Maybe Bridgman, should say clearly what is AMD intention.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Drago View Post
                  The fact is that nothing stops AMD to add support for UVD, and close the driver because of this.
                  Well, except the fact that they have to write a UVD driver from scratch. Because they can't just use the Catalyst code, the drivers are probably way too different, and it would likely be easier to write something new using the Catalyst code as a reference.

                  And if that is written, then it all depends on the internal review. If they get the green light, they can open source it and add it to the Linux drivers at any tie. So I don't see the Linux driver losing anything because of this.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Has anybody considered the possibility that the reason it may be easier to use the OSS driver than catalyst is due to CPU ARCHITECTURE? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't catalyst x86-only?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      The main reason for basing this driver on the open source stack was that we wanted to be able to release the new driver in source code form.

                      Given that constraint, leveraging the existing open source code (rather than trying to sanitize a bazillion lines of Catalyst code) was kind of a no-brainer.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Thoughts:

                        Reasons to use the Radeon driver for embedded windows.

                        1: No need to pay per-unit licensing on catalyst (cheaper for AMD)
                        2: No need to port catalyst to additional architectures
                        3: Much like #2, OSS driver is easier to port to 'funky' devices. An example of this would be a device with a non-rectangular display.
                        4: OEM access to source enables OEM contribution and rapid prototyping.
                        5: Less paperwork.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Setlec View Post
                          i hope that with this new project the linux driver will get better OGL support and principally better consumption and memory management!
                          I don't see why would it be that way. You know they're not required to open source their development.
                          Anyway, Radeon still loses nothing, and MAY gain something in exchange.
                          Last edited by mrugiero; 10-14-2011, 12:29 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            The embedded team hired 2 more developers (Tom and Christian) to help extend the upstream open source driver so the intent is certainly for this to be an overall win.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                              The embedded team hired 2 more developers (Tom and Christian) to help extend the upstream open source driver so the intent is certainly for this to be an overall win.
                              Well, I need to read better then.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by russofris View Post
                                Thoughts:

                                Reasons to use the Radeon driver for embedded windows.

                                1: No need to pay per-unit licensing on catalyst (cheaper for AMD)
                                2: No need to port catalyst to additional architectures
                                3: Much like #2, OSS driver is easier to port to 'funky' devices. An example of this would be a device with a non-rectangular display.
                                4: OEM access to source enables OEM contribution and rapid prototyping.
                                5: Less paperwork.
                                yes very nice improvements.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X