NVIDIA Publishes Code For X Synchronization Fences

[mugginz]

Q: AMD was able to open source and/or document a lot by separating out the parts they couldn't legally disclose. Similar problems have been cited as preventing NVIDIA from open sourcing their driver (licensed 3rd parts code, etc) or documentation. Could nVidia use the same strategy?

A similar strategy might be technically possible for NVIDIA, but for better or worse I think it is quite unlikely. There are several reasons for this:

- For competitive reasons on other platforms, I don't think we would ever open source any of our cross-platform driver source code (which is 90%+ of the Linux driver... see my earlier description of code sharing). The Linux-specific pieces of the driver code base don't really stand on their own, and generally need to change in sync with the cross-platform code, so I don't believe it would be practical to just open source the Linux-specific pieces.

- We have developed substantial IP in our graphics driver that we do not want to expose.

- Unfortunately the vast majority of our documentation is created solely for internal distribution. While at some point it may be possible to release some of this information in pubic form it would be quite a monumental effort to go through the vast amounts of internal documents and repurpose them for external consumption.

[mirv]

See the bouncer at the door. He'll give you a ticket to get back in.

Oh cool.
(interestingly enough, I used to do that for a job).

Link to the previous nvidia replies about spec releases:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...qa_linux&num=3

[pingufunkybeat]

I don't know why they are not releasing specs, but I still want them.

AMD went through a lot of trouble to produce specs in a releasable state. I haven't even seen goodwill from Nvidia. Only the "you don't really need open source" mantra and an obfuscated driver which was dropped in favour of the VESA one.

[mugginz]

I'll just chime in that there was some discussion from nvidia a while ago about why they don't open their drivers - I might try look for it in a moment (it's on phoronix somewhere). Will post a link if I find it.

If I recall correctly it was pretty vague stuff but the direct links would be great.

[mugginz]

Is there an intermission soon? I want to grab some food from the candy bar.

See the bouncer at the door. He'll give you a ticket to get back in.

[mirv]

I'll just chime in that there was some discussion from nvidia a while ago about why they don't open their drivers - I might try look for it in a moment (it's on phoronix somewhere). Will post a link if I find it.

[mugginz]

Sure I'd like them to release this too. If the Hollywood lawyers don't let them do this with current hardware, I expect them to design it better in the future so at least the non-DRM bits can be exposed.

But here you acknowledge that validity of restricting the release of IP but haven't yet posted your evidence that nVidia is completely free to release their IP but choose not to because they're bad.

[mugginz]

To a degree in some cases. If nvidia drop support for a card, then it's pretty much well gone as usable under Linux. Open source drivers don't really suffer from this problem.
Vendor lock-in can be nasty.

Is there an intermission soon? I want to grab some food from the candy bar.

If nVidia drop support for a card then that compromises the use of that card going forward but doesn't damage their driver as it stands now. Given their direct support for legacy cards there's no indication at the moment that nVidia are a "cut and run" kind of operation.

While AMD needed to recently drop support for some cards in fglrx for technical reasons nVidia have themselves done a pretty decent job for legacy hardware.

[pingufunkybeat]

So is AMD bad as well? They don't release specs for their UVD stuff. Are you going to be consistent here?

Sure I'd like them to release this too. If the Hollywood lawyers don't let them do this with current hardware, I expect them to design it better in the future so at least the non-DRM bits can be exposed.

In the meantime, they have released the specs needed for modesetting, 2d/EXA, Xvideo, memory management, 3d and others. All that is legally possible, in other words.

Surely you see the difference between this and Nvidia, who expect you to reverse engineer your hardware just to know how to change the fucking resolution? *


* might be slightly exaggerated

[mugginz]

Yes I do.

But I never claimed that YOU have to feel the same way about it.

Let me run a free OS with free drivers. You run whatever you want.

And I never claimed you have to run closed ones either.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on our stance regarding the use of closed drivers on Linux.

It's the LACK OF OPEN DRIVERS that is making Linux completely dependent on the closed drivers.

I just don't agree with this.