Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A GEM-ified TTM Manager For Radeon

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

  • phoronix
    started a topic A GEM-ified TTM Manager For Radeon

    A GEM-ified TTM Manager For Radeon

    Phoronix: A GEM-ified TTM Manager For Radeon

    Back in May when X.Org developers were voicing concerns about Tungsten's TTM as being the kernel memory manager used for graphics drivers, Keith Packard had unveiled the work Intel had been doing for an alternate kernel memory manager. This memory manager they call GEM, or the Graphics Execution Manager, is a competing solution but it has some advantages such as being simpler to develop drivers around (A Technical Explanation of Intel's GEM)...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NjY3Ng

  • lucky_
    replied
    Originally posted by Vighy View Post
    I like the way you think, I will subscribe to your magazine... if you have one

    and to whom dislike what keith did: "He develops X since 20 years ago, are you sure he doesn't know what he is doing? "
    Hehe right, it pissed me off when I read that M. Packard would have surrender to Intel and transform X in an Intel only platform.
    If he would have feel any pressure, I am sure his skills and knowledge are worth enough to find another job, in a more xorg friendly company.
    I am not saying that Intel is more xorg friendly than any other company in the business, but just stop bitching about people who spent their entire life in developing Xorg.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jens.3
    replied
    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
    devs have practically abandoned the "Free" part of open source
    I'd like to point out that the "free" in "free software" has always been "free as in speech", hence "libre software".

    Leave a comment:


  • Vighy
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    Keith's crime was coming up with a new memory management API which the other devs thought was good enough to justify re-implementing parts of their existing code.

    I'm sure there was a bit of "oh crap, if Intel is going this way then we'd better go that way too so we can all stay compatible" feeling but honestly the X devs are a pretty strong-willed lot and I don't think any of them would go along with GEM unless they felt that GEM had something good to offer.

    TTM was very important because it provided enough of a common API for the community to implement (there are prototype Intel, Radeon and Nouveau implementations, possibly more) and to build on (DRI2), but after all the implementation work I think there was some general feeling that "this isn't quite right". GEM seems to have come along at the right time and so it received fairly broad support from the developers, even the ones who had just finished working on TTM.

    Assuming Keith cares about any of this discussion, he might want to work on his "naming skills". If he had called GEM "TTM Reloaded" everyone would be calling him a hero. Same with UXA -- if he called it "EXA re-implemented over a real memory manager, with a different name so I don't over-write the existing EXA files" everyone would be dancing in the streets.
    I like the way you think, I will subscribe to your magazine... if you have one

    and to whom dislike what keith did: "He develops X since 20 years ago, are you sure he doesn't know what he is doing? "

    Leave a comment:


  • ethana2
    replied
    Originally posted by FunkyRider View Post
    What's wrong with getting paid for writing software?
    Nothing at all, in the direct sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • FunkyRider
    replied
    What's wrong with getting paid for writing software?

    Leave a comment:


  • RealNC
    replied
    Don't forget how this all began: with a kid in his basement trying to check out the features of his 386 since Minix could not.

    Leave a comment:


  • rbmorse
    replied
    What on Earth do you expect? People gotta eat. They gotta feed their families. Have you priced BMWs lately?

    As long as Linux remains in the zero revenue mode the bulk of development is going to be paid for by some business somewhere whose motivation for supporting Linux is to leverage their investment against other revenue generating activities.

    Even the Linux kernel devs have practically abandoned the "Free" part of open source are everything is business-oriented.
    Hey...as long as the source is available to the "community", that's all that counts, isn't that the plan? I'm sure there's some kid hiding in his parent's basement right at this minute just about to release a fully-functional, unified, universal replacement for Xserver.

    Leave a comment:


  • RealNC
    replied
    Originally posted by b15hop View Post
    Interesting that open source is technically tied to business.
    The days of innocence are over Even the Linux kernel devs have practically abandoned the "Free" part of open source are everything is business-oriented.

    Leave a comment:


  • b15hop
    replied
    RE Monkey King:
    Seems to me just human factor then. That experienced Linux guru's make a bigger difference in the long run. Intel have more money to throw at such people. Another guess, but very sure I'm right. Interesting that open source is technically tied to business.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X