AMD Soon Might Have Out AMDGPU Support For The Original GCN GPUs

[bridgman]

Unapproved again. This is getting much worse, nearly every post gets moderated now.

[nanonyme]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no... if the closed source drivers use IOCTLs not yet supported by the upstream kernel driver then no.

You're probably thinking "why don't you push the code for those IOCTLs upstream ?"; the answer is "if they're only used by a closed source userspace driver we can't".

I'm not up on the details of where we will be dispensing the packages from... blissfully ignorant after vacation

I was mainly thinking as to whether
1) amdgpu-pro kernel driver is always installed and loaded
2) amdgpu-pro kernel driver loading would be somehow smart depending on what the kernel version is
3) amdgpu-pro kernel driver was separately installable and user gets to say when they want it

[nanonyme]

Unapproved again. This is getting much worse, nearly every post gets moderated now.

I'm starting to suspect using too many newlines can trigger it, my post apparently got unapproved as well and my post was pretty short

[Nille_kungen]

Unapproved again. This is getting much worse, nearly every post gets moderated now.

Most of my posts lately has been unapproved.

[osmotr]

Remember that the kernel driver shipped with the amdgpu hybrid (aka "Pro") driver enables CI by default, so you don't need a custom kernel. That is the stack which is replacing Linux Catalyst aka fglrx.

That said, the amdgpu hybrid preview we published a few weeks back targets 14.04.4, not 16.04, so if you are using fglrx today then you probably should stay on your current distro until the next amdgpu hybrid release (which does target 16.04).

Hi bridgman
the next hybrid will be a preview/beta or production release and targeting single distro it's bad decision for excluded distros
why you don't release a generic pack for all distros

[nanonyme]

Unapproved again. This is getting much worse, nearly every post gets moderated now.

I guess you should count yourself lucky. Mine was apparently rejected completely, probably as a result of using too many newlines. I was trying to ask whether the kernel driver installation would be optional, installation would be mandatory but loading only if kernel is not new enough or installation mandatory and always loaded

[Guest]

Why is the post moderation set-up the way it is currently anyway? If anything, new-ish accounts with little posting history should be moderated. Long-standing accounts with hundreds (and thousands) of legitimate posts I'm pretty sure aren't just going to be spamming up the forums out of nowhere, and even if they do, people can just report the posts/user...

[haagch]

You're probably thinking "why don't you push the code for those IOCTLs upstream ?"; the answer is "if they're only used by a closed source userspace driver we can't".

Eh, one post from me apparently vanished too, so again: You could still put at least a branch into one of the developer's repositories on fdo like e.g. https://cgit.freedesktop.org/~agd5f/...xt-4.7-wip-dal. Sure, for the amdgpu dkms module there is source code, but it's not up to date with the latest kernel, so a branch with an up to date kernel with support for it would be nice.

But especially for libdrm and xf86-video-amdgpu having source code available synced with latest git master would make it easier to use the amdgpu-pro driver on modern distributions. I hear that xf86-video-amdgpu from it is compiled against X.org 1.15, that's really old...

[bridgman]

I was trying to ask whether the kernel driver installation would be optional, installation would be mandatory but loading only if kernel is not new enough or installation mandatory and always loaded

I think the intent is that it remains a separate step so always optional, but obviously there's no guarantee the userspace drivers will work if paired with a random kernel. There may be not-yet-upstreamed or not-upstreamable code in the hybrid kernel driver that the userspace requires, although we'll try to keep that to a minimum.

Why is the post moderation set-up the way it is currently anyway? If anything, new-ish accounts with little posting history should be moderated. Long-standing accounts with hundreds (and thousands) of legitimate posts I'm pretty sure aren't just going to be spamming up the forums out of nowhere, and even if they do, people can just report the posts/user...

AFAIK it's a bug in the anti-spam software, not an "operating as designed" feature.

[bridgman]

Bah... responded to nanonyme and Espionage724 but that post got the "unapproved" treatment too