Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NVIDIA Updates Its Old GeForce 6 Series Driver

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

  • #11
    Tegra!

    This actuality originates from Tegra SoCs Android drivers that are in use so don't think twice Nv is so caring & nice! It refares from ge force 6 to he force 8 generation as the same GPU architecture is in use on Tegra 3-4 SOCs...

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
      If I still have to wait for UVD support on RS780/880/RV790 AMD is doing it wrong. So quit posting when you have no clue.
      But the Catalyst UVD support isn't really better, either. So it's much better to ask AMD to update the OSS drivers rather than the old Catalyst blob (which won't have VDPAU support ever, anyway).

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
        But the Catalyst UVD support isn't really better, either. So it's much better to ask AMD to update the OSS drivers rather than the old Catalyst blob (which won't have VDPAU support ever, anyway).
        Maybe not really better, but at least it is existent. We asked AMD over and over again to deliver UVD for those chips in the OSS driver, but as stated above, this is a low priority legal thing, so we might never get it in the OSS driver, while it is no legal problem at all to deliver UVD in the blob.
        Fact is, AMD deprecated hardware without giving a fully functioning alternative, and of that deprecated hardware that isn't fully functioning one part in particular, the RS880, is still sold in masses. So AMD delivers hardware without a fully functioning driver, may sound harsh, but for me that is close to fraud.
        At least it is a marketing disaster, I wonder where AMD does get its marketing department, so many piss poor decisions in the last years.
        Last edited by Vim_User; 23 January 2014, 11:59 PM.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
          but as stated above, this is a low priority legal thing, so we might never get it in the OSS driver, while it is no legal problem at all to deliver UVD in the blob.
          Just to be clear we're talking about two separate issues here. Being a lower priority means it takes more calendar time to find out if the *current* solution is regarded as safe for release. If support for early UVDs *never* gets released, that means (a) current solution fails and (b) we are not able to come up with a solution which *is* deemed acceptable.

          I don't think it likely that the current solution will never get reviewed, which is what your statement implies.
          Test signature

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by bridgman View Post
            Just to be clear we're talking about two separate issues here. Being a lower priority means it takes more calendar time to find out if the *current* solution is regarded as safe for release. If support for early UVDs *never* gets released, that means (a) current solution fails and (b) we are not able to come up with a solution which *is* deemed acceptable.

            I don't think it likely that the current solution will never get reviewed, which is what your statement implies.
            You are right, I should have stated that different. Some questions:
            - If early UVD leagl review is low priority, does it have even started? If not, when can we expect the review process to be started? Will we be noticed?
            - Hypothetically, if the legal review comes to the conclusion that early UVD can't be released, will we ever be informed about that? Or will their be a wall of silence?

            For now, it looks like that AMD just waits until nobody cares anymore, as I stated already, AMD should seriously work on their marketing. Communication seems to be very difficult.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
              You are right, I should have stated that different. Some questions:
              - If early UVD leagl review is low priority, does it have even started? If not, when can we expect the review process to be started? Will we be noticed?
              - Hypothetically, if the legal review comes to the conclusion that early UVD can't be released, will we ever be informed about that? Or will their be a wall of silence?

              For now, it looks like that AMD just waits until nobody cares anymore, as I stated already, AMD should seriously work on their marketing. Communication seems to be very difficult.
              Again, the reviews aren't just "review/release" (more like review/reject/think up new approach/review/reject/think up new approach/review/approve/release), and they're not just legal. The main activity is dragging our top technical people off the projects they're working on so they can spend enough time reviewing the proposed release to determine if it's technically and legally safe.

              Some proposed releases are quick and easy, literally a couple of minutes from each of the leads, but something like support for old UVD (which crosses over pretty much every aspect of DRM and security on a part that was never designed for open source support) requires big chunks of uninterrupted time -- and we used up a lot of their time getting the current UVD and DPM code out.

              If the current approach fails review and we conclude that we won't be able to find an acceptable solution then yes we'll let you know. That said, hopefully I was *really really really* clear from the start of the open source graphics project that you should *not* assume we will be able to release open source UVD support.
              Last edited by bridgman; 24 January 2014, 10:29 AM.
              Test signature

              Comment


              • #17
                Stupid edit limit
                Test signature

                Comment

                Working...
                X