Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Skylake & Broxton To Require Graphics Firmware Blobs

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

  • Intel Skylake & Broxton To Require Graphics Firmware Blobs

    Phoronix: Intel Skylake & Broxton To Require Graphics Firmware Blobs

    Intel's upcoming Skylake and Broxton hardware will require some binary-only firmware blobs by the i915 DRM kernel graphics driver...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...Firmware-Blobs

  • #2
    For such firmware i never fully understand what they gain by disallowing reverse engineering (that's not even legal to deny in many places), and not open sourcing them.

    Comment


    • #3
      I am not very excited about Intel even before this. From Haswell on up its impossible to develop a Coreboot image for such hardware and install it except maybe for the oem that builds the board. So I will not buy anything from that on. I am not shure about the atom chips if the cherry trail atoms have finaly 64bit uefi and how the coreboot situation is there. But in gererell I tend more to amd. for 2in1 I would maybe ignore the coreboot problematic everything is better then the mobil locked down android alternatives (Tablets/smartphone) but there needs to be a 64bit uefi.

      Comment


      • #4
        First on my mind is that FSF can sleep well now

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm not sure I understand this
          Is Intel closing their driver?

          I seems that our last hope for free drivers has died

          Welcome spyware, backdoors and unfixable bugs

          Can someone tell me where I can leave Intel some bad words for this?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Danny3 View Post
            I'm not sure I understand this
            Is Intel closing their driver?

            I seems that our last hope for free drivers has died

            Welcome spyware, backdoors and unfixable bugs

            Can someone tell me where I can leave Intel some bad words for this?
            it's a binary blob, AMD requires the same thing.

            Comment


            • #7
              Who wins what with it?
              GPLv3 on kernel 4now!

              Comment


              • #8
                Why does this have to be in an blob when it could be open source.
                Why trying to forbid "no reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software is permitted." when it's allowed in EU by law and they can't forbid it?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Danny3 View Post
                  Can someone tell me where I can leave Intel some bad words for this?
                  Good here as anywhere, as intel holds 2/3 of the PC GPU market . Millions of users, millions of blobs - not just one or two

                  It is bad for the society of course, but i understand companies sometimes must do it - that is opensource.

                  Originally posted by Nille_kungen View Post
                  Why trying to forbid "no reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software is permitted." when it's allowed in EU by law and they can't forbid it?
                  Nouveau is a french word, choosen for that particular reason Not sure how new jntel goes on french - might be reinside, from Renault Inside
                  Last edited by dungeon; 06-05-2015, 08:06 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Nille_kungen View Post
                    Why does this have to be in an blob when it could be open source.

                    Well, I have a strong preference for open source, and I don't wanna speak for Intel. But given all I know, my hunch would be that the hardware uses components that force them to close some bits, typically through partnerships with other manufacturers who don't (yet) embrace open source, or are held themselves by stupid patents. In any case, an open source driver with a binary firmware blob is 1,000 better than a closed source driver, IMHO.

                    Note that, in contrast with AMD, Intel develops everything, exclusively in the open. Their open source driver is first class, it is their only driver, and it is on par with the Windows driver, which is the reference platform for desktop computers.

                    I have used linux-firmware in Ubuntu for ages, I don't think this is new or uncommon, as explained in Michael's article. But I use almost exclusively open source software, otherwise.

                    Also, as far as I can tell, these firmware blobs are really, really low level bits of code written with a pretty straightforward, generic interface.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X