Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Releases New "AMDGPU" Linux Kernel Driver & Mesa Support

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

  • Originally posted by agd5f View Post
    Carrizo has DCE11 and UVD 6
    Any news about Hi10P?

    Comment


    • So I'll ask the question everyone wants to know:

      Right now amdgpu only supports the radeon 285x and following. Is there some big blocker in the hardware that prevents older GPUs from being supported by it? I.e. will support for older GPUs happen some time in the future, or is it completely out of the question?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by haagch View Post
        So I'll ask the question everyone wants to know:

        Right now amdgpu only supports the radeon 285x and following. Is there some big blocker in the hardware that prevents older GPUs from being supported by it? I.e. will support for older GPUs happen some time in the future, or is it completely out of the question?
        Why do you care?

        The older ones are already suppported by the radeon driver on the kernel side.
        They are both supported by Mesa in userspace.

        Comment


        • But I can't use catalyst and mesa with the same kernel driver with my older GPU...

          In the past the radeon kernel driver had massive problems when being unloaded, bringing down the whole kernel. Recently it's gotten better, but still hangs when being loaded for 10 seconds before recovering. So in theory right now, I could just unload radeon and load fglrx, run the program (with bumblebee) and then do the reverse, but I still don't trust that to be completely reliable...

          Comment


          • Just a reminder here -- the amdgpu project is not about allowing mix & match of userspace drivers, it's about getting more developers working on common code so we can make better open source and "Catalyst" stacks.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by haagch View Post
              So I'll ask the question everyone wants to know:

              Right now amdgpu only supports the radeon 285x and following. Is there some big blocker in the hardware that prevents older GPUs from being supported by it? I.e. will support for older GPUs happen some time in the future, or is it completely out of the question?
              It is usually not allowed to have 2 drivers for the same hardware in the Linux kernel. We also don't have enough resources to maintain 2 drivers - somebody would have to be assigned to port the hardware support from radeon, not to say that amdgpu would likely be less stable for the old hardware, because it's a new driver and not so tested as radeon. These risks and additional development cost are not worth it. Making radeon & amdgpu better drivers would be a better use of time. Some of us also don't know when Catalyst will start using amdgpu, that is whether it will use amdgpu with radeon 285 or the generation after that.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by marek View Post
                It is usually not allowed to have 2 drivers for the same hardware in the Linux kernel.
                Yep. The problem is that userspace drivers which expect radeon IOCTLs for existing hardware have been out for years and exist on pretty much everyone's system. Linux kernel rules are based on making kernels backwards-compatible (new kernel doesn't break existing userspace) rather than on deploying matched sets of kernel & userspace drivers.

                Comment


                • Does the new radeonsi mesa work with fglrx kernel driver? Maybe with fglrx ddx.
                  Last edited by Kano; 04-23-2015, 11:37 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kano View Post
                    Does the new radeonsi mesa work with fglrx kernel driver? Maybe with fglrx ddx.
                    No, it does not.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by drSeehas View Post
                      My last try and then I give up:

                      Why avoids "GCN 1.x" confusion with engineering family names and marketing family names but the official "GCN Generation X" can't avoid confusion?
                      What is the ?raison d'?tre? of the official "GCN Generation X" name?
                      Why not name it officially "GCN 1.x" but "GCN Generation X"?
                      Bolded by me,

                      That means the reason for it to exist?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X