Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Linux Kernel Begins Preparing For AV1 Decode Support

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

  • The Linux Kernel Begins Preparing For AV1 Decode Support

    Phoronix: The Linux Kernel Begins Preparing For AV1 Decode Support

    The number of hardware platforms providing accelerated AV1 coding is still quite limited for now but with more hardware coming to market supporting encode/decode of this royalty-free video codec, the Linux kernel's media subsystem is getting ready...

    https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...a-RFC-AV1-uAPI

  • #2
    I guess this is for handling cameras or other devices that output in AV1 format, right?
    Otherwise it would be duplication of work as we already have VA-API...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
      I guess this is for handling cameras or other devices that output in AV1 format, right?
      Otherwise it would be duplication of work as we already have VA-API...
      Nope, it's duplication, like v4l2.

      Partly because reinventing the wheel is what ALWAYS happens with anything to do with media (insert links to any of a dozen xkcd strips here :P), but also partly because VAAPI has some pettiness in it that guarantees you can't actually have a conformant implementation unless the hardware is built in a particular way / has certain capabilities that have nothing at all to do with video.

      Comment


      • #4
        Does that mean one day I'll have an AV1 hardware decoder supported by both my hardware (RDNA2, supports OpenMAX) and my media player (mpv, supports VA-API)?

        Comment


        • #5
          didn't AV1 get patent by sisvel

          without consent of Alliance for Open Media by force

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Aryma View Post
            didn't AV1 get patent by sisvel

            without consent of Alliance for Open Media by force
            Thats worded wrong, the claim is that AOM used methods that already have patents (knowingly or not), and sisvel compiled a list of these.

            Anything you create can be already covered by patents, actually AOM should handle these assertions immediately. Its way worse if those claims come years after the format gained traction (submarine patents). The fact that they are shy of that is not a good sign.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by discordian View Post
              Thats worded wrong, the claim is that AOM used methods that already have patents (knowingly or not), and sisvel compiled a list of these.

              Anything you create can be already covered by patents, actually AOM should handle these assertions immediately. Its way worse if those claims come years after the format gained traction (submarine patents). The fact that they are shy of that is not a good sign.
              It's not AOM delaying the discovery of this pool, Sisvel knew ahead of time that they would be making the claim that patents relevant to AV1 were left in their care, but they refuse to disclose which patents (still to this day, afaik) so there's nothing for AOM to be "shy" of. AOM literally can't say anything except that they'll address it if Sisvel ever brings a claim in court.

              Sisvel's conduct suggests that their intent is to harm the adoption of AV1; not to get licensing money out of it, and not to get specific infringers to cease.

              Sisvel may never bring a claim in court; maybe the patents are of tenuous relevance, maybe they're pretending (the dealings behind this are entirely confidential after all) and getting paid to do so (it's kinda the perfect crime; who can sue for the reputation of the AV1 mark? Who would have standing?).

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by microcode View Post

                It's not AOM delaying the discovery of this pool, Sisvel knew ahead of time that they would be making the claim that patents relevant to AV1 were left in their care, but they refuse to disclose which patents (still to this day, afaik) so there's nothing for AOM to be "shy" of. AOM literally can't say anything except that they'll address it if Sisvel ever brings a claim in court.
                The list is right here: https://www.sisvel.com/images/docume...ntList_AV1.pdf

                Originally posted by microcode View Post
                Sisvel's conduct suggests that their intent is to harm the adoption of AV1; not to get licensing money out of it, and not to get specific infringers to cease.
                Well, unless AV1 is used, there is no infringment?

                Originally posted by microcode View Post
                Sisvel may never bring a claim in court; maybe the patents are of tenuous relevance, maybe they're pretending (the dealings behind this are entirely confidential after all) and getting paid to do so (it's kinda the perfect crime; who can sue for the reputation of the AV1 mark? Who would have standing?).
                Yeah, might not be worth fighting for years. You Do know, that Google claimed VP8 is not infringing (not sure if thats a word) on Mpeg LA patents, then got the license they dont infringe on years later (likely paid for it)?

                IF we go conspiracy mode, this is more like swaying the public opinion for their own format, instead of being upfront about patents.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by microcode View Post

                  It's not AOM delaying the discovery of this pool, Sisvel knew ahead of time that they would be making the claim that patents relevant to AV1 were left in their care, but they refuse to disclose which patents (still to this day, afaik) so there's nothing for AOM to be "shy" of. AOM literally can't say anything except that they'll address it if Sisvel ever brings a claim in court.

                  Sisvel's conduct suggests that their intent is to harm the adoption of AV1; not to get licensing money out of it, and not to get specific infringers to cease.

                  Sisvel may never bring a claim in court; maybe the patents are of tenuous relevance, maybe they're pretending (the dealings behind this are entirely confidential after all) and getting paid to do so (it's kinda the perfect crime; who can sue for the reputation of the AV1 mark? Who would have standing?).
                  Any idea if they filed in East Texas?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ResponseWriter View Post
                    Does that mean one day I'll have an AV1 hardware decoder supported by both my hardware (RDNA2, supports OpenMAX) and my media player (mpv, supports VA-API)?
                    Looks like radeonsi will soon have supoort for AV1 in VA-API: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/...requests/12307

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X