Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMDGPU-PRO on Southern Islands - testing!

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by Amarildo View Post
    If anyone wants to know how I did it, just ask and I'm happy to teach
    No, need to teach here ... You can also install manualy selection of these packages with dpkg instead of apt and avoiding creating that local repo, just don't run that script or easiest for your thing well i guess you can just edit installed file and force dkms to rebuild that , that way you will avoid checksums hell
    Last edited by dungeon; 12-12-2016, 10:28 PM.

    Comment


    • #12
      dungeon Oh, I wasn't sure the script wasn't necessary.

      I just realized AMDGPU-PRO is somewhat "stripped-down catalyst": no own and good fan control, no control panel, basically the same OpenGL.... of course, with Vulkan and whatever other late feature AMD has decided to put here :P

      Still miles away from the Windows driver which is way superior.
      Last edited by Amarildo; 12-12-2016, 11:51 PM.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Amarildo View Post
        dungeon Oh, I wasn't sure the script wasn't necessary.
        Nothing is necessery, just you have more manual and guessing work For example, i guess only these 9 packages are essential for X and everything else is optional:

        amdgpu-pro-dkms
        libdrm2-amdgpu-pro
        libgbm1-amdgpu-pro
        libgl1-amdgpu-pro-glx
        libgl1-amdgpu-pro-ext
        libgl1-amdgpu-pro-dri
        libgles2-amdgpu-pro
        xserver-xorg-video-glamoregl-amdgpu-pro
        xserver-xorg-video-amdgpu-pro
        So you can just dpkg all that at once or if it is PX add modeseting, so depends what is essential for you... And if you wanna vdpau, 32bit, vulkan, profiles, dev... . All that is optional or if someone wanna just CL even without X selection would be different of course, etc...

        Of course average Joe probably better to have everything installed strightaway just to make sure all things are not missing and having apt repo is handy, etc... but if you know what you doing there everything is fine
        Last edited by dungeon; 12-13-2016, 01:37 AM.

        Comment


        • #14
          bridgman How would I go for patching "xserver-xorg-video-amdgpu-pro"? Or is that impossible? AMD could release the sources for it, right?
          Last edited by Amarildo; 12-14-2016, 01:24 PM.

          Comment


          • #15
            You can't patch what does not have source, you can only crack it.

            I don't think they would release source of that, with blob suite they ship opensourced only parts where they are forced to do so . So kernel part - since it is GPL and copylefted, while MIT/X11 does not enforce copyleft, so from legal POV it is fine. In the end of the day, they do just that there - what is legal to do.

            Basically to be on safe side, do not expect that they would opensource anything else other than what currently is ... or if they plan to opensource something that is their thing, that again must pass legality check

            So the best you can do is to say what you wanna patch in xserver-xorg-video-amdgpu-pro? They might do that for you next time
            Last edited by dungeon; 12-14-2016, 09:59 PM.

            Comment


            • #16
              Yeah, we need to release source for that.

              dungeon, a better statement would be "we release the stuff we are forced to release first". You can't really look at all of the code we are releasing to open source (like the entire ROC stack) and think we are holding back just because we don't have to release something.
              Last edited by bridgman; 12-14-2016, 11:57 PM.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                Yeah, we need to release source for that.
                You don't *need* but only if you want you might to depending on blah blah . Proper wording and better to say would be - we wanna release source of that in future

                Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                dungeon, a better statement would be "we release the stuff we are forced to release first". You can't really look at all of the code we are releasing to open source (like the entire ROC stack) and think we are holding back just because we don't have to release something.
                Priority is always to have something working there and not to release source code of course, that is obviosly secondary thing there isn't it otherwise you will not release blob at all, but just source ... I don't think anyone of users will complain on the matter other than those who wanna everything to be opensourced with a main reason of "just because" but regardless is it crap or not
                Last edited by dungeon; 12-15-2016, 12:55 AM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X