AMD Readies "New Stuff" For Linux 6.6 Graphics Driver, AMDGPU DC For RISC-V

[Quackdoc]

Why do you think ARM failed at this, and what makes RISC-V different?

I'm not sure why arm in general failed, rpi4 actually got relatively close to crossing that threshold, it has the maintainability (due to popularity) as well as cost, but never managed to cross that performance threshold. There are a couple of key points, Generic arm devices are simply too costly to get, I'm talking about devices that could boot a "generic" arm image, (typically efi). and the ecosystem was littered with devices that have poor mainline support if any at all. even if they hit the preformance:cost threshold. this means custom images are almost always needed on a per board basis (as apposed to booting a basic EFI system with typical kernel then using DKMS the rest of the way this is ARM's system ready IIRC).

risc-v actually has a good chance here, riscv has good spec of handing efi via edk2, ofc you still have to worry about acpi and dtb, but it's not like there are no ways around that.

[F.Ultra]

I disagree with this, as long as it meets the minimum performance threshold and an acceptable cost it could see adoption assuming the devices can actually be maintained, this is something arm never did.

Don't underestimate brand name, I mean for many many people the same could be said for Linux but still Windows remains king of the hill (or AMD vs nVidia for that matter). There have to be extremely compelling reasons for the people at large to move.

[smitty3268]

risc-v actually has a good chance here, riscv has good spec of handing efi via edk2, ofc you still have to worry about acpi and dtb, but it's not like there are no ways around that.

I honestly haven't followed RISC-V that closely, but my understanding (from a distance) was that the primary reason to choose them over say, ARM, was that you could more easily do custom proprietary additions in RISC-V without having to deal with standardizing or opening it up for the larger community. Which makes me pretty doubtful that RISC-V devices are going to work with some standard environment, seems much more likely they'll all need custom handling even more so than ARM devices do.

Could be I'm wrong about that though, I guess we'll just have to wait and see once they actually start appearing.

[Quackdoc]

I honestly haven't followed RISC-V that closely, but my understanding (from a distance) was that the primary reason to choose them over say, ARM, was that you could more easily do custom proprietary additions in RISC-V without having to deal with standardizing or opening it up for the larger community. Which makes me pretty doubtful that RISC-V devices are going to work with some standard environment, seems much more likely they'll all need custom handling even more so than ARM devices do.

Could be I'm wrong about that though, I guess we'll just have to wait and see once they actually start appearing.

there are a lot of reasons one would choose riscv over arch, costs being a large one,

there was a lot of standardization, earlier comment by ayumu posted an update called RVA22 that will help even more, but even without that RV64GC was more or less the defacto standard anyways