Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: NVIDIA Updates Its Old GeForce 6 Series Driver

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nadro View Post
    r600g already support UVD 2.0, OGL3.3 will coming soon. I think that in next 2-3 moths we'll see 3.3 support.
    As far as I know UVD 2.2 is only supported. However UVD 2.0 code is ready, but awaits review by AMD staff.

    http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...ry/051584.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian König
    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.
    Last edited by siavashserver; 01-23-2014 at 11:36 AM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Belgrade, Serbia
    Posts
    25

    Default

    AMD not even that it does not maintain legacy GPU linux drivers, it actually took them down from their site! So I can't even use old AMD drivers. I have to use opensource Gallium 0.4, which does not work well on my integrated Radeon X1200 (although it says Gallium 0.4 on ATI RS690)...

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default 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...

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    Quote 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).

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote 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; 01-23-2014 at 10:59 PM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,434

    Default

    Quote 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.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,434

    Default

    Quote 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; 01-24-2014 at 09:29 AM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,434

    Default

    Stupid edit limit

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    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.
    Do you have room for one more top technical developer?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •