Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A New VIA OpenChrome Gallium3D Driver Is Under Development

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

  • lepetit
    replied
    the documentation of via is good or not enougt ?
    http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Openchrome/Development/

    Leave a comment:


  • libv
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    It didn't work in 2008 when I tried to use it. So from my POV it never reached "working" status even for limited GL 1.2, not even talking about the chips' full abilities.



    Oh, well aware who you are It could be argued that a 2d driver does not need to go the hard way like you did, but using the bios tables is acceptable (not sure if Via had such).
    Of course. VIA had register dumps taken straight out of the BIOS in their code. This is why and where structured display driver development started. Openchrome forked away in the middle of me doing that work though, as i would not accept adding a VBE based codepath back in. This was two steps back from what i was working towards. As far as i know, the multiple codepaths plague the openchrome driver still today. It will be a decade since that fork soon.

    As for PLLs, use the radeon driver for evidence that it is not that easy, and doing it properly is a lot of work (which only one man so far has done).

    Doing modesetting right is _very_ hard. The combinations are endless, the different blocks, and there are usually many, of which all are usually different, rarely work together under all conditions. The amount of hardware needed to support all configurations out there is also vast. And it's not as if you can emulate one of the steps in there.

    In comparison, anything 3D is pretty well contained and very overseeable. You always take bits from one piece of memory, have some combination of hardware in between, and throw the result to another bit of memory, so everything can be nicely quantified and measured. With the right _software_ infrastructure, you can test the hell out of it, and you only need like 1-2 devices per chip generation, not every board with a different display layout. Everything has actually become a lot easier with shaders, as you can always throw in a slightly different shader program, and verify that it is not the commandstream that's messed up.

    Everything is easy in 3d land, at least much easier than in display land.

    Sadly, everyone just confuses the blinginess with difficulty.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    Originally posted by libv View Post
    Reply to exhibit B: There was a working VIA 3d driver since 2003, but nobody cared enough, so it was thrown out of mesa 3 years ago.
    It didn't work in 2008 when I tried to use it. So from my POV it never reached "working" status even for limited GL 1.2, not even talking about the chips' full abilities.

    Surely you can do better than that, especially to the man who pioneered modesetting, and who did so on VIA hardware, and who REs ARM GPUs these days.
    Oh, well aware who you are It could be argued that a 2d driver does not need to go the hard way like you did, but using the bios tables is acceptable (not sure if Via had such).

    Leave a comment:


  • libv
    replied
    Originally posted by Nille View Post
    And thats the reason why display support comes early and 2D and 3D comes much much later and need month to get stable?
    Erm. Limited display support comes early. You can easily create a 3d driver by using most of the mesa software fallbacks as well. Neither is a measure of how difficult either task is.

    Leave a comment:


  • libv
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    Exhibit A: working via 2d in 2005.
    Exhibit B: no working via 3d in 2015.

    Those two statements are logically unrelated and unrelated to the discussion.

    Reply to exhibit A: James only now added patches to get DVI on VT1632 working.
    Reply to exhibit B: There was a working VIA 3d driver since 2003, but nobody cared enough, so it was thrown out of mesa 3 years ago.

    Surely you can do better than that, especially to the man who pioneered modesetting, and who did so on VIA hardware, and who REs ARM GPUs these days.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nille
    replied
    Originally posted by libv View Post
    Bullshit.
    And thats the reason why display support comes early and 2D and 3D comes much much later and need month to get stable?

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    Originally posted by libv View Post
    Bullshit.

    Getting full and proper display support is much much harder than getting 3d. It's only for hypermaxxed devices that it is hard, as those things are way too unstable for their own good.

    And i am amazed that people still would argue differently today.
    Exhibit A: working via 2d in 2005.
    Exhibit B: no working via 3d in 2015.

    Leave a comment:


  • libv
    replied
    Originally posted by Mat2 View Post
    Why is it so?
    What is so difficult about display support? Driving PLLs?
    Have you done either?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mat2
    replied
    Why is it so?
    What is so difficult about display support? Driving PLLs?

    Leave a comment:


  • libv
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    That's fully 2d use, so the gallium driver (this topic ) won't directly help any. It's many orders of magnitude more difficult than a 2d driver like unichrome and openchrome, so waiting for it + glamor will be a long wait.
    Bullshit.

    Getting full and proper display support is much much harder than getting 3d. It's only for hypermaxxed devices that it is hard, as those things are way too unstable for their own good.

    And i am amazed that people still would argue differently today.
    Last edited by libv; 10 January 2015, 03:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X