NVIDIA 304.37 Linux Driver Brings 41 Official Changes

[RealNC]

why are people so mad at what nvidia is doing to *their* drivers for *their* customer who *choose* to use *their* drivers...

Envy. NVidia *does* offer the best support for Linux and many people are like "I want that too", but then complain about non-Freeness.

[Naib]

why are people so mad at what nvidia is doing to *their* drivers for *their* customer who *choose* to use *their* drivers...

If you don't like nvidia, don't buy nvidia simple as that. That is why I havn't owned a piece of sony equipment for over 10years...

[johnc]

As far as i know (although i could be wrong, and bridgeman can correct me) AMD's blob isn't using dmabuf, either.

I'm curious to know too because I would think that dma-buf would be key for their APU and heterogeneous compute strategies.

[ninez]

They can offer exactly the same thing Intel and AMD offer. They simply refuse to do it.

As far as i know (although i could be wrong, and bridgeman can correct me) AMD's blob isn't using dmabuf, either.

'Oh, and Intel and AMD contribute to the kernel, Nvidia doesn't. But they have special requests.

Where did you come up with that?

'...We are a very active participant in the ARM Linux kernel. For the latest 3.4 ARM kernel – the next-gen kernel to be used on future Linux, Android, and Chrome distributions – Nvidia ranks second in terms of total lines changed and fourth in terms of number of changesets for all employers or organisations.'

So nvidia, doesn't contribute to the linux kernel? That's weird that you would claim they contribute nothing, when they are a heavy contributor, at least in the ARM linux kernel (and being as ARM is very popular, i think it should be taken into account). They also have contributed to X.org and probably other things, as well. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with them requesting to use a new feature in the linux kernel, if they feel it will benefit Nvidia users... and who knows, had they been able to use it - they may have actually ended up contributing some patches to help improve dmabuf (although that is speculation, i admit).

And personally, I don't care if Intel and AMD contribute more, because at the end of the day - they could've contributed 10x the amount that Nvidia has ~ yet Nvidia's drivers slaughter both of those companies linux drivers, and their hardware slaughters ANYTHING Intel is putting out. AMD makes comparable hardware, it's just too bad, their blob is always falling behind.

[calubi]

Oh, and Intel and AMD contribute to the kernel, Nvidia doesn't. But they have special requests.

Really?

$ git log | grep "@nvidia.com" | wc -l
1889

[pingufunkybeat]

Not wanting Optimus on Linux could make sense if you consider that many of the more vocal opponents of NVidia using dmabuf, are actually Intel employees. Like Alan Cox, probably the most vocal of them who are against this.

So we are in a situation where the employers of a competitor company decide what you can and can't offer for a platform. Another company known to do these things is Microsoft.

They can offer exactly the same thing Intel and AMD offer. They simply refuse to do it.

Oh, and Intel and AMD contribute to the kernel, Nvidia doesn't. But they have special requests.

[ninez]

AFAIK the most common embedded driver model is a GPL-compatible open source kernel driver plus binary userspace.

oops, my bad/ i always forget that it is the user-space side of embedded driver model that is closed... ~ hence, why you usually see devs trying to implement the 3d stuff that is missing, when they are trying to make an OSS implementation for some ARM device's GFX hardware.

Apparently, i am not paying attention, tonight ~ thank you for the correction, Bridgman.

[bridgman]

We don't have to imagine that. If this is in fact the case (that nvidia can't use DMABUF - which i think it is). Nvidia and no other closed-source drivers/blobs can use it ---> embedded devices tend to be using closed-source blobs.

AFAIK the most common embedded driver model is a GPL-compatible open source kernel driver plus binary userspace.

[johnc]

We don't have to imagine that. If this is in fact the case (that nvidia can't use DMABUF - which i think it is). Nvidia and no other closed-source drivers/blobs can use it ---> embedded devices tend to be using closed-source blobs.

Ahhh, I must have misinterpreted those comments from the TI guy.

Not wanting Optimus on Linux could make sense if you consider that many of the more vocal opponents of NVidia using dmabuf, are actually Intel employees. Like Alan Cox, probably the most vocal of them who are against this.

So we are in a situation where the employers of a competitor company decide what you can and can't offer for a platform. Another company known to do these things is Microsoft.

This is the political aspect that I was afraid to bring up. I think it's true of a lot of these projects and ideas that get pushed by certain (to be unnamed) entities. There's always the possibility of corporate motives.

[RealNC]

irony? Linux isn't putting ridiculous contraints on users... Nvidia is. Puts head on desk and cries for those that don't "get it".

Linux actually does put constrains on users. NVidia just follows a tried model to do their support. An OS offers services to drivers, and then the hardware manufacturer writes drivers.

Linux is refusing to offer needed services to the hardware vendor. In other words, Linux says:

"Our licensing model failed; it prevents driver writers to offer good proprietary support. So fuck you NVidia."

Yeah, makes a lot of sense.