Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARB_enhanced_layouts Lands In Mesa Git, Rounds Out OpenGL 4.4 For RadeonSI

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

  • ARB_enhanced_layouts Lands In Mesa Git, Rounds Out OpenGL 4.4 For RadeonSI

    Phoronix: ARB_enhanced_layouts Lands In Mesa Git, Rounds Out OpenGL 4.4 For RadeonSI

    The work by Nicolai Hähnle on finishing up the GL_ARB_enhanced_layouts extension for Gallium3D is now in Git. This officially marks RadeonSI done with OpenGL 4.4 and is effectively done with OpenGL 4.5 although the new version string is yet to be advertised...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ayouts-RSI-Git

  • geearf
    replied
    Originally posted by Berniyh View Post

    I don't see why there would be the need to pay the fee for the Intel and the r600/radeonsi driver.
    AMD and Intel already payed those fees (for their hardware and for their windows drivers, AMD also for their amdgpu-pro driver).
    Since they both work actively on the project, they can advertise it towards Kronos as one of their products and submit it for confirmation.
    Right, hence the "already do".

    Leave a comment:


  • Berniyh
    replied
    Originally posted by geearf View Post

    Intel and AMD can pay the fees easily, and most likely already do for Windows (and maybe phones too), I don't see why they would care:

    That leaves the community drivers.
    Reading your quoted passage, especially
    enable an Adopter to submit an unlimited number of products for that API (and any earlier versions as indicated in the table below).
    I don't see why there would be the need to pay the fee for the Intel and the r600/radeonsi driver.
    AMD and Intel already payed those fees (for their hardware and for their windows drivers, AMD also for their amdgpu-pro driver).
    Since they both work actively on the project, they can advertise it towards Kronos as one of their products and submit it for confirmation.

    It's a bit different for Nouveau, since (to my knowledge), Nvidia doesn't take part here, at least not actively.

    Leave a comment:


  • veritas
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post

    I emailed the Khronos President who I communicate with regularly to try to get some clarification and if the open-source implementations would have any exemption... Did it this morning, waiting to hear back.
    Thanks for that. Interested in knowing the reply.

    Leave a comment:


  • boffo
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post

    I emailed the Khronos President who I communicate with regularly to try to get some clarification and if the open-source implementations would have any exemption... Did it this morning, waiting to hear back.
    What about a indiegogo found raising?

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

    I just want to know whether we can expect Mesa to report 4.4 to OpenGL applications without Mesa paying $25000 or $30000 to khronos.

    From the PDF documents mentioned in this discussion it seems that Mesa will need to pay the fee if it wants glxinfo to output "OpenGL core profile version string: 4.4 (Core Profile) Mesa ...".
    I emailed the Khronos President who I communicate with regularly to try to get some clarification and if the open-source implementations would have any exemption... Did it this morning, waiting to hear back.

    Leave a comment:


  • dungeon
    replied
    Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post
    I just want to know whether we can expect Mesa to report 4.4 to OpenGL applications without Mesa paying $25000 or $30000 to khronos.
    Maybe we can ask Khronos "could only we apply to pass CTS without paying?"

    Whatever, user alone can just override it if he wants, in similar way as building mesa with texture-float or using s3tc lib...

    Leave a comment:


  • atomsymbol
    replied
    Originally posted by dungeon View Post
    Thing is and point of this is - there is no unconformant OpenGL 4.4, when someone officialy wanna say i have OpenGL 4.4 that automatically also means it is conformant.

    Unofficialy you can do whatever you want as always, to the point of even inventing your own graphic API and of course name it as you wish.
    I just want to know whether we can expect Mesa to report 4.4 to OpenGL applications without Mesa paying $25000 or $30000 to khronos.

    From the PDF documents mentioned in this discussion it seems that Mesa will need to pay the fee if it wants glxinfo to output "OpenGL core profile version string: 4.4 (Core Profile) Mesa ...".

    Leave a comment:


  • dungeon
    replied
    Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post
    Is it possible for Mesa to be a non-conformant OpenGL 4.4 implementation? In other words, are non-conformant OpenGL 4.4 implementations illegal?
    Thing is and point of this is - there is no unconformant OpenGL 4.4, when someone officialy wanna say i have OpenGL 4.4 that automatically also means it is conformant.

    Unofficialy you can do whatever you want as always, to the point of even inventing your own graphic API and of course name it as you wish.

    Leave a comment:


  • dungeon
    replied
    Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post
    Ok. But I don't see how the document prevents OpenGL implementations from reporting version 4.4 to OpenGL applications.
    You have document for that too... see point 3 bolded one

    https://www.khronos.org/files/legal/...guidelines.pdf

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X