No big issue here. I hope we will see hdmi free TVs soon. They should be a good deal cheaper.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
HDMI Forum Rejects Open-Source HDMI 2.1 Driver Support Sought By AMD
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Theriverlethe View Post
Clean-room reverse-engineering is the entire reason the "IBM/PC compatible" market exists. IBM used off-the-shelf parts for everything in their PC's except a proprietary BIOS. The BIOS was reverse-engineered separately by Columbia Data Systems and Compaq with no grounds for legal challenge, and here we are.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by rene View PostI don't get what the problem shoudl be? Code is code, not trademark. If AMD has working code just publish the patch. Also don't name it HDMI, but NotDMI instead, ... what problem is left then? It is obviously implemented in the hardware. Just toggle the right bits. Totally don't see what the problem should me.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by LtdJorge View PostI'm on LG OLED C3. 4xHDMI, 0xDP 🥲
But: connecting a TV to a computer also has some drawbacks. You just named one of those.
You could also have bought an OLED computer monitor which would have had DP inputs but you've chosen to cheap out on that. I know you still spent much money but still you cheaped out. We need to name the options you've had. And it's a pitty that the cheap stuff currently doesn't play well with the ideals of linux but thats the way it is currently.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by boltronics View PostAMD should stick it to the HDMI Forum by dropping HDMI support for all of their high-end GPUs. Standard DisplayPort and USB-C ports only. Then, sell an official DisplayPort -> HDMI adapter for people who want "legacy" HDMI support..
And even if you where to buy a DP > HDMI cable with 2.1 support with an active logic that would be just a form of upscaling and not the signal you would want to have~~.
Maybe nivida could sell you a 1080p to 4k cable with vsr logic for a few 100 bucks .
Comment
-
​Originally posted by boltronics View PostI have an R9 Fury X hooked up to my living room TV, and guess what? I use a DP to HDMI 2.0 dongle (so I can at least get 4K@60). It was I think AU$10 or something ridiculously cheap. I don't see what the issue is.
When R9 Fury launched, those were not yet available in the market.
DP to HDMI 2.1 dongles are way more expensive.
​Originally posted by Panix View Postonly Linux users and specifically, AMD gpu users care about it.Originally posted by Panix View PostWindows users aren't even contemplating this dilemma
Originally posted by Ikaris View PostIt is also unknown to me whether the in-GPU HDMI hardware is HDR- or CEC-capable which would in turn make the converter mandatory.
Source: Fail0verflow's presentation at 33c3 on running Linux on the PS4.
While we can only presume what was the reason for the discrete HDMI encoder, we do know that:- No other ATI/AMD graphics chip produced to date supports HDMI CEC
- Sony is on record stating that they planned HDR for PS4 right from the beginning
- Microsoft Xbox One which launched at the same time supports neither HDR nor CEC. (Both Durango and Liverpool APUs are essentially larger versions of Kabini.) HDR support came only with Xbox One S and Xbox One X.
Originally posted by erniv2 View PostThats not how DP > HDMI Adapters work, DP knows how to talk TDMS the HDMI code format, and DP > HDMI crossover cables are non active there is no Compute logic involved
​Last edited by chithanh; 29 February 2024, 04:01 PM.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by duby229 View Post
That's not true at all. The legality of it has to do with the definition of "clean room reverse engineering". If the group doing it has never had any contact or relationship or influence with the specifications that they're reverse engineering and the entire process is thoroughly documented such that a lawyer can defend the actions taken as being compliant with the definition of clean room reverse engineering and that it was necessary for the sake of interoperability.... Then yes, in the US it would be legal.
EDIT: AMD couldn't legally do it, but a group of people like us could....
Originally posted by Artim View Post
It wouldn't. The issue isn't patents, just the license agreements of the specifications. The specifications may not be published by any members, but HDMI IF has no legal leverage against people reverse engineering it and then publishing it. Sure they'd most likely sue and maybe one of their lawyers may be able to get some win out of it, but just because the accused party wouldn't have the money to hire a similarly competent lawyer. They have no basis to sue.
HDMI IF also have a patent pool which you gain access to if you license.
Comment
-
Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
no that is not at all how patents work. Two companies/people can independently come up with a similar solution/invention but if one of them have patented it then the other is in violation. Clean room only solves the copyright problem, the only solution to the patent problem is to either abolish software patents, wait till they are expired or license them.
​
HDMI IF also have a patent pool which you gain access to if you license.
EDIT: The specification isn't software, the implementation of the specification is. They can patent their proprietary implementation all they want. As long as you don't touch their proprietary implementation and you can prove it with clean room reverse engineering techniques then you can't violate their patent. Same thing goes for hardware patents by the way.
As long as you can prove you have no influence or relationship to it and you can prove that the specifications were reverse engineered using clean room techniques and you can prove it was necessary for interoperability... then it -is- legal.
The only way it could be argued to be a patent violation is if you failed to prove you had no influence or relationship to it or if you failed to prove it was done compliant with clean room reverse engineering techniques or if you failed to prove it was necessary for interoperability. But if you can prove all of this then it is -not- a patent violation.
Last edited by duby229; 29 February 2024, 04:54 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by phoronix View PostPhoronix: HDMI Forum Rejects Open-Source HDMI 2.1 Driver Support Sought By AMD
One of the limitations of AMD's open-source Linux graphics driver has been the inability to implement HDMI 2.1+ functionality on the basis of legal requirements by the HDMI Forum. AMD engineers had been working to come up with a solution in conjunction with the HDMI Forum for being able to provide HDMI 2.1+ capabilities with their open-source Linux kernel driver, but it looks like those efforts for now have concluded and failed...
https://www.phoronix.com/news/HDMI-2.1-OSS-Rejected
Holy (or HDMI if you will) inferiority complex, batman.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment