AMD Catalyst 8.5 For Linux

[duby229]

You might be surprised how close we are to this already. Stay tuned.

Well thats cool. I'm always excited to here about new progress.

Sure, but I think you're talking about use of Microsoft IP in general not WHQL itself.

It's unavoidable. I think this is part of MS plan and ATi is helping them propagate it. Call me paranoid, but the evidence is clear and cant be disputed. MS has been inserting it's own code into various linux projects (like fglrx, mono, and more) and is continuing to do so even today. I dont think MS would have a leg to stand on with there infringement argument without it.

We're at 4 now; it just takes time to hire and train. The downside is that while we're bringing in new people and getting them up to speed we aren't working on documentation and drivers, so there's a bit of a balancing thing going on.

Most of the work is actually in mesa and drm these days; now that radeonhd has DRI support it can start lighting up the 3D drivers just like radeon.

Well, that's better then I was aware. I still feel fglrx should be should killed, and the man power devoted to it should be converted to the open source projects.

OK, let me say it differently

We are not going to dump our workstation technology into an open source driver. NVidia is not likely to dump their workstation technology into an open source driver. Open source projects work very well but in cases where software technology is part of a company's competitive position opening up the code is not an automatic win.

I agree that you normally see benefits from open sourcing projects, but you need to consider that there is a selection process happening before the decision is made, ie in general projects which are expected to benefit from open sourcing get open sourced, and projects which are not expected to benefit from open sourcing do not get open sourced.

I disagree. I acnt see one instance where a closed driver would provide some kind of benefit. If you can name one instance where a closed driver might be of some benefit then you might persuade me, but I cant think of a single one.

The only thing I can think of is that your thinking that using a closed source driver is somehow going to "hide" something. Come now, I'm not that naive. I may be a noob, but I know full and well that the first thing nVidia does when ATi releases a new driver is reverse compile it, and you do the exact same thing with theres. When ATi releases a new chip the first thing nVidia does is put it under an electron microscope, figuratively and literally, and you guys do the same.

I'm not so sure about this one. It's not a question of talent -- there are some *very* good developers working in open source -- but I haven't found a single open source developer willing to commit the time and (mind numbing) effort necessary to make a top-notch gaming or workstation driver. If you don't believe me go ask on any of the IRC channels where the top open source devs hang out. They'll all tell you the same thing -- "we *could* do it but it's not likely we'll ever have time".

And that is entirely ATi's fault. 100% they arent actually expected to work for free are they? They have to have a day job. These guys have families to feed just like everybody else. Pay them enough to make it there day job, and put the guys from fglrx working on it full time too. It's not magic. It requires some talent yes, but it also requires some funding and incentive. Bottom line it's ATi hardware and if they want to tap into this market then they need to devote the resources required to make it worthwhile.

Sure, I can point you to all kinds of good solutions for hacking HDCP. That's not the point (I can't believe I'm getting into a DRM discussion on Friday night ) -- we will implement legal BluRay playback only because a large customer is willing to buy a huge heap of chips if we do. You as Linux users need to decide what you want the future to look like -- if you want the kind of huge growth that everyone talks about you are going to have to deal with issues like DRM because the user mix will be completely different from what it is today. I'm not sure that's what everyone in the Linux community wants.

I don't know how this is going to play out -- for now I am just putting legal playback of protected video (yes, this is a country-specific thing) on the list of functions which so far we only know how to do with a closed-source driver.

I'm not much in the mood for debating DRM at the moment, but suffice to say that HDCP itself breaks at least half a dozen laws in the US alone, and by supporting it in your drivers ATi is too. It's simply not worth your time. It will be hacked.

I would love someone to try and sue me for using a HDCP hack. I'm a poor person, but I'sd take it to court and run with it becouse I know for a fact beyond that shadow of a doubt that I would win by a significant margin.

Bottom line is HDCP really isnt your concern. It is currently being worked on by --far-- more capable open source projects. Your efforts arent wanted or needed.

[bridgman]

The power just went out for the second time; think I'll either quit for the night or limit myself to short answers

[brouhaha]

RPMs still won't build on Fedora 8 x86_64

I previously mentioned (probably in the Catalyst 8.4 thread) that I still couldn't get packages for Fedora 8 x86_64 to build, and someone else said they built fine, so I thought perhaps the problem was my system.

Today I just did a fresh install of Fedora 8 x86_64, and have verified that Fedora 8 RPMs can't be built from any Catalyst installer from 8.1 through 8.5.

For each Catalyst release I tried, I used a command like:

./ati-driver-installer-8-5-x86.x86_64.run --buildpkg Fedora/F8 2>&1 | tee fglrx-8.5-f8.log

The logs I captured from all five versions of Catalyst can be seen here.

Note: this has nothing to do with whether the drivers work on Fedora 8; I've successfully used Catalyst 8.4 on Fedora 8 for some time now. This is purely a packaging issue.

[bridgman]

Once the drivers are mature and they work for that users hardware he wont have to worry about it. This is the goal that ATi should be working towards. Fully supporting each and every new device on launch day with open drivers. That way the user wont have to worry about it. Software gets updated as part of the regular update cycle. This is of course the ideal, and nobody here is expecting perfection. But you know some parity would be nice.

You might be surprised how close we are to this already. Stay tuned.

Oh come now. I dont believe that your that naive. You know exactly what WHQL certification requires. MS has already been convicted of it in the past. It's the very reason why years ago when nVidia tried to open source there drivers they had to retract the code before it got published.

Sure, but I think you're talking about use of Microsoft IP in general not WHQL itself.

Dedicate more then just 2 guys then. If you want maximum performance give us more then 2 people working on the documentation and drivers. Take the people that are working on fglrx and dedicate them to the open source projects. I'm sure the guys working on DRM could use a bit of help right now. The guys working on radeon, and radeonhd could certainly use a hand.

We're at 4 now; it just takes time to hire and train. The downside is that while we're bringing in new people and getting them up to speed we aren't working on documentation and drivers, so there's a bit of a balancing thing going on.

Most of the work is actually in mesa and drm these days; now that radeonhd has DRI support it can start lighting up the 3D drivers just like radeon.

And saying that nobody is going to dump there project into an open source driver is cocky and arrogant at best. The bottom line fact is that open source projects produce superior products every single time. A fact that has been proven time and time again every single time it was tested. If anything they should be --encouraged-- to use open source code and projects as often as possible.

OK, let me say it differently

We are not going to dump our workstation technology into an open source driver. Our competitors are not likely to dump their workstation technology into an open source driver either. In cases where software technology is part of a company's competitive position opening up the code is not an automatic win.

I agree that you normally see benefits from open sourcing projects, but you need to consider that there is a selection process happening before the decision is made, ie in general projects which are expected to benefit from open sourcing get open sourced, and projects which are not expected to benefit from open sourcing do not get open sourced. In cases where software technology is part of a company's competitive position opening up the code is not an automatic win. What you typically end up with is a compromise where some bits are opened up and others are not.

We looked at the market requirements and concluded that a two driver approach was probably the best starting point. That doesn't stop us from treating parts of the fglrx driver as open source projects -- the bottom end of the kernel driver has been GPL'ed for a long time, and the per-distribution packaging scripts are open sourced as well (big thanks to everyone involved !).

As far as gaming goes, the the only limiting factor at this point is driver support. And that is entirely ATi's fault and nobody elses. Gaming on an open source driver could be and --will-- be just as good and better then what a closed driver will be capable of delivering. Sooner rather then later the closed driver will be surpassed. It's inevitable. It will happen.

I'm not so sure about this one. It's not a question of talent -- there are some *very* good developers working in open source -- but I haven't found a single open source developer willing to commit the time and (mind numbing) effort necessary to make a top-notch gaming or workstation driver. If you don't believe me go ask on any of the IRC channels where the top open source devs hang out. They'll all tell you the same thing -- "we *could* do it but it's not likely we'll ever have time".

And as far as HDCP goes, screw them... It will be hacked.... It's inevitable. And it's gonna be done in such a way as to be completely 100% transparent. I've got more to say on it, but this isnt the time or the place. Suffice to say that it isnt your concern. Dont waste your time.

Sure, I can point you to all kinds of good solutions for hacking HDCP. That's not the point (I can't believe I'm getting into a DRM discussion on Friday night ) -- we will implement legal BluRay playback only because a large customer is willing to buy a huge heap of chips if we do. You as Linux users need to decide what you want the future to look like -- if you want the kind of huge growth that everyone talks about you are going to have to deal with issues like DRM because the user mix will be completely different from what it is today. I'm not sure that's what everyone in the Linux community wants.

I don't know how this is going to play out -- for now I am just putting legal playback of protected video (yes, this is a country-specific thing) on the list of functions which so far we only know how to do with a closed-source driver.

[duby229]

This is a tough one. Most users (and most distros) try to avoid updating the server if possible, because so many other bits need to match. There's a lot to be said for picking up an entire xorg release, which AFAIK includes all the drivers as well.

That said, I don't actually remember seeing any update mechanism that allows you to pull down an entire xorg release set. Nuts, something else to go learn

Once the drivers are mature and they work for that users hardware he wont have to worry about it. This is the goal that ATi should be working towards. Fully supporting each and every new device on launch day with open drivers. That way the user wont have to worry about it. Software gets updated as part of the regular update cycle. This is of course the ideal, and nobody here is expecting perfection. But you know some parity would be nice.

Not sure I understand this. WHQL is a driver quality and conformance test. No test is perfect but in almost every case passing WHQL makes the driver better not worse. WHQL doesn't care much about OpenGL, of course, and we don't run WHQL on the Linux driver builds; I don't think the common code is adversely affected by having to pass WHQL on the Windows drivers though... am I not getting your point ?

Oh come now. I dont believe that your that naive. You know exactly what WHQL certification requires. MS has already been convicted of it in the past. It's the very reason why years ago when nVidia tried to open source there drivers they had to retract the code before it got published.

Remember what the fglrx driver was initially written for -- workstation systems, generally OEM preloads with pre-installed drivers, where the requirement is maximum performance, ISV certification and specific (sometimes uncommon) OpenGL features. We do see open source drivers being used very widely, but there are three areas where the open source drivers are not going to be able to compete :

- workstation graphics (this is a highly competitive market; nobody is going to dump their proprietary software into an open source driver)

- gaming (same thing; proprietary software is a big part of the competitive advantage)

- legal playback of BluRay etc; again, not possible with an open source driver stack

For most other scenarios, I expect users will get an open source driver out-of-the-box and never bother to upgrade.

[/QUOTE]

Dedicate more then just 2 guys then. If you want maximum performance give us more then 2 people working on the documentation and drivers. Take the people that are working on fglrx and dedicate them to the open source projects. I'm sure the guys working on DRM could use a bit of help right now. The guys working on radeon, and radeonhd could certainly use a hand.

And saying that nobody is going to dump there project into an open source driver is cocky and arrogant at best. The bottom line fact is that open source projects produce superior products every single time. A fact that has been proven time and time again every single time it was tested. If anything they should be --encouraged-- to use open source code and projects as often as possible.

As far as gaming goes, the the only limiting factor at this point is driver support. And that is entirely ATi's fault and nobody elses. Gaming on an open source driver could be and --will-- be just as good and better then what a closed driver will be capable of delivering. Sooner rather then later the closed driver will be surpassed. It's inevitable. It will happen.

And as far as HDCP goes, screw them... It will be hacked.... It's inevitable. And it's gonna be done in such a way as to be completely 100% transparent. I've got more to say on it, but this isnt the time or the place. Suffice to say that it isnt your concern. Dont waste your time.

[bridgman]

Hi bridgeman. Sorry for being a pain. I just wanted to chime in here as well. Thanks for your time and patience...

I thought you chimed in 20 minutes ago

I can pretty much promise you beyond the shadow of a doubt that any of the market share numbers you get based on web browser and so on is totally incorrect. The problem is that most Linux boxes are servers, and great deal of them (even newer ones from last year) are using rage128 chips. I'd say that makes up the vast majority of the linux market share.

Agreed, but server numbers don't really count. A lot of those servers already have Radeon 7000 or ES1000 graphics, and we have always supported those with open source drivers. We have a dedicated team for supporting server OEMs with open source graphics drivers, although they are starting to work on the newer open source drivers after all our server customers are happy

The fact is that a significant linux market exists. But ATi has --not-- leveraged it. This may upset a few people, but I firmly believe that you can easily get away with using a low end radeon on a server board. It may be overkill, but it will have an effect on your bottom line. Especially considering the advances in virtualization technology. AMD will be releasing a new IOMMU that supports virtualizing IO in the near future. That in combination with the proliferation of Linux thin clients in various workstation environments makes a significant market for you to target.

Yep. Again, the Radeon 7000 is already in a lot of thin client systems -- I'm constantly surprised how many -- but again most of the thin client developers want to write, or at least modify their own drivers so we tend to either license source or steer them towards the open source drivers.

Additionally, even though desktop linux makes up a small minority of linux market share, the number of video cards being used in desktop linux all added up equates to millions of dollars, that are mostly going into nVidia's pockets. It may be small in comparison, but we are still talking about --millions-- of dollars.. If you guys took the time to get the drivers in order, and then --specifically-- marketed towards the linux community I could absolutely guarantee your revenues would increase by a worthwhile margin.

Agreed. The problem is that even millions of dollars (unless it's a lot of millions ) doesn't go that far once you start thinking about margins vs. revenues. Most Linux users tend towards low end cards, and don't have a compelling need to upgrade frequently because of the limited gaming options other than running under Wine.

Which leads me to a Friday night rant :

"OK, so we had good Windows drivers but everyone wanted Linux drivers. Now we have Linux drivers, and what does everyone want to do with them ? Run Windows apps . Augggh !!!".

[bridgman]

Hi Bridgeman. I just wanted to add that may be true in the short term, but sooner rather then later (hopefully) the open source driver will get built with the xserver. I'm not sure how RPM based distro's, or how Apt based distro's do it, but with Gentoo it uses an environment variable called VIDEO_CARDS that allows you to set the video drivers you want to install along with the xserver. I'm positive that Ubuntu or Fedora, or SuSe must have some similar mechanism for installing the proper device drivers.

This is a tough one. Most users (and most distros) try to avoid updating the server if possible, because so many other bits need to match. There's a lot to be said for picking up an entire xorg release, which AFAIK includes all the drivers as well.

That said, I don't actually remember seeing any update mechanism that allows you to pull down an entire xorg release set. Nuts, something else to go learn

All we have to do now is wait for the open source driver to mature. After that there really wont be any point in fglrx. I can understand it as a stopgap, but as long as MS enforces it's WHQL certification, fglrx will never be a viable option. Until ATi is able to put it's full might behind it, fglrx is effectively worthless in every possible way.

Not sure I understand this. WHQL is a driver quality and conformance test. No test is perfect but in almost every case passing WHQL makes the driver better not worse. WHQL doesn't care much about OpenGL, of course, and we don't run WHQL on the Linux driver builds; I don't think the common code is adversely affected by having to pass WHQL on the Windows drivers though... am I not getting your point ?

I personally think they should stop all further development right now, and devote every person that is currently working on it into getting documentation and code out the open source community. When it all boils down to nothing in the end that really is the only viable choice they actually have. Devoting resources to fglrx is simply delaying the inevitable. And it's a shame too becouse that delay is only hurting themselves.

Remember what the fglrx driver was initially written for -- workstation systems, generally OEM preloads with pre-installed drivers, where the requirement is maximum performance, ISV certification and specific (sometimes uncommon) OpenGL features. We do see open source drivers being used very widely, but there are three areas where the open source drivers are not going to be able to compete :

- workstation graphics (this is a highly competitive market; nobody is going to dump their proprietary software into an open source driver)

- gaming (same thing; proprietary software is a big part of the competitive advantage)

- legal playback of BluRay etc; again, not possible with an open source driver stack

For most other scenarios, I expect users will get an open source driver out-of-the-box and never bother to upgrade.

[duby229]

That's a good idea. There have been some attempts to collect that kind of information, but it's really hard to get the numbers matched up from different sources so the results aren't all that credible. We have a problem reporting tool for Windows (at least we used to) which collected some info about the ATI product and the OS then formatted up an email which could then feed into bug tracking systems, but I think a lot of folks didn't like even that level of "phoning home". Do you think enough people would bother that we would get a representative number ?

So far the most credible numbers seem to come from third party web sites which track browser and OS type. They don't identify whether the graphics card is ATI or something else, but market share info is available separately and even if we assume we have 100% market share the numbers aren't that high.

Hi bridgeman. Sorry for being a pain. I just wanted to chime in here as well. Thanks for your time and patience...

I can pretty much promise you beyond the shadow of a doubt that any of the market share numbers you get based on web browser and so on is totally incorrect. The problem is that most Linux boxes are servers, and great deal of them (even newer ones from last year) are using rage128 chips. I'd say that makes up the vast majority of the linux market share.

The fact is that a significant linux market exists. But ATi has --not-- leveraged it. This may upset a few people, but I firmly believe that you can easily get away with using a low end radeon on a server board. It may be overkill, but it will have an effect on your bottom line. Especially considering the advances in virtualization technology. AMD will be releasing a new IOMMU that supports virtualizing IO in the near future. That in combination with the proliferation of Linux thin clients in various workstation environments makes a significant market for you to target.

Additionally, even though desktop linux makes up a small minority of linux market share, the number of video cards being used in desktop linux all added up equates to millions of dollars, that are mostly going into nVidia's pockets. It may be small in comparison, but we are still talking about --millions-- of dollars.. If you guys took the time to get the drivers in order, and then --specifically-- marketed towards the linux community I could absolutely guarantee your revenues would increase by a worthwhile margin.

[duby229]

I think we will get R600 3D running on open source drivers before we get an installer smart enough to work with every distro variant and patch combination out there. That said, there are only a finite number of open source developers available to help debug system-specific issues and I'm already seeing a lot of users who don't want to run open source drivers because "they have to build them and that's a big pain".

Hi Bridgeman. I just wanted to add that may be true in the short term, but sooner rather then later (hopefully) the open source driver will get built with the xserver. I'm not sure how RPM based distro's, or how Apt based distro's do it, but with Gentoo it uses an environment variable called VIDEO_CARDS that allows you to set the video drivers you want to install along with the xserver. I'm positive that Ubuntu or Fedora, or SuSe must have some similar mechanism for installing the proper device drivers.

All we have to do now is wait for the open source driver to mature. After that there really wont be any point in fglrx. I can understand it as a stopgap, but as long as MS enforces it's WHQL certification, fglrx will never be a viable option. Until ATi is able to put it's full might behind it, fglrx is effectively worthless in every possible way.

I personally think they should stop all further development right now, and devote every person that is currently working on it into getting documentation and code out the open source community. When it all boils down to nothing in the end that really is the only viable choice they actually have. Devoting resources to fglrx is simply delaying the inevitable. And it's a shame too becouse that delay is only hurting themselves.

[bridgman]

The opensourcedriver manages 2D and XVideo fine, but 3D is limited to glxgears or it'll bring down the system.

Dave and Alex pushed some pretty significant fixes for RS4xx recently; have you tried the open source drivers in the last couple of weeks ? You definitely need latest DRM and Mesa, not sure about radeon and X server.

Here's one of the recent fixes : http://airlied.livejournal.com/59351.html