Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Radeon's ROCm OpenCL Runtime Finally Open-Sourced

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

  • darkbasic
    replied
    Guys I completely agree with you that free software isn't free anymore if you have to use firmware blobs, but let's celebrate this massive release for now

    Leave a comment:


  • Zucca
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    Unknown, but according to Stallman or other Free/Libre proponents it's like that. Suff in ROMs is ok, stuff loaded at runtime is not. Even if it is the same.
    This has been puzzling me for quite a long time now.

    Think about XeonPhi cards. They have a complete operating system (although open one, some intel Linux distro) inside them. Now imagine if those cards also contained a SSD, so that you don't need to "upload" the OS from the main OS you are running.
    Now the "firmware" (and the whole OS) is contained inside the harware and is ok in FSF standards?
    Using that same analogue: If graphics cards would contain flash chips that store heaps of data that run some overly complicated firmware that no-one (except few people) knows what it is doing... It's an 'OK' for FSF?

    I'm personally ok with closed-firmwares, where ever they may reside. Open source drivers provide enough flexibility/hackability that community can utilize.

    Leave a comment:


  • eigenlambda
    replied
    The firmware is software that runs on the GPU, not part of the driver that lets Linux programs use the GPU. If you want an open source GPU, and you have more money than Donald Trump, why don't you go hire several hundred hardware engineers?

    Leave a comment:


  • dungeon
    replied
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    it shouldn't, since firmware is a hardware's implementation detail
    And indeed it is software, by vocation non-free Thus should be named as such when claim friendliness to Free/Libre.

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by artivision View Post
    As far as i understand it OCL is C
    your understanding is outdated. opencl is c++14

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by dungeon View Post
    If it is not, why you use it? Why not remove it?
    why do you use hardware? who not remove it? idiotic question, isn't it?

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by Serafean View Post
    1) Driver is useless without firmware, so it effectively is.
    driver is useless without hardware, so?
    Originally posted by Serafean View Post
    2) yes. At that point it becomes hardware.
    only idiot prefers his hardware to be unfixable

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by dungeon View Post
    it should say "No(firmware required)"
    it shouldn't, since firmware is a hardware's implementation detail

    Leave a comment:


  • Marc.2377
    replied
    Originally posted by Marc.2377 View Post
    There is enough (imo) C++ support in recent OpenCL versions to be productive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL#OpenCL_2.2
    I'd like to ask Bridgman what are the current expectations to support OpenCL v2.1 or v2.2 now. Marc Driftmeyer has already expressed some concern regarding this but it went unanswered.


    I too have a SI card (the R9 280x) but I'm optimistic that ROCm can be made to work with it, given enough time.


    Last I checked it was abandoned...
    Well, found this: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/me...rackers/clover
    Will definitely test later.

    Leave a comment:


  • dungeon
    replied
    Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
    That is total garbage. What do you want next, the source code to the hardware?
    It isn't about me, it is if you claim something Free/Libre friendly it must align to their POV that is all...

    There are real limits to what a company like AMD can do and continue to survive as a company. Lets face it some really bad moves over the last few years have put them in bad shape. Simply put they have to keep certain aspects of their GPUs secret to survive. This has nothing to do with respect of a community.

    The Libre movement should be happy that AMD is doing as much as they are. More is better of course but who can we go to that is dramatically better?
    I didn't said anything about AMD there, but about someone who editing columns on that link.

    https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...424#post951424

    So that is only what i complain here, do you see there "Driver status > Free/Libre > Yes"? instead of Yes that shoud be No (blob firmware required).

    This has nothing to do with respect!!!
    It is about respect, as from that POV you don't say Yes and then sneaks some blobs in Instead with 'No (blob firmwares required)' everything is clarified fine.
    Last edited by dungeon; 05-13-2017, 05:05 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X