Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARM Talks Mali Vulkan, Lack Of Open Drivers & More @ Linaro Budapest 17

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

  • speculatrix
    replied
    p.s. I didn't know that Intel were a significant shareholder in ImgTech. http://techreport.com/news/27811/rep...n-technologies

    Leave a comment:


  • speculatrix
    replied
    does anyone remember the days of the Intel PXE StrongArm chips, which used the ATI Imageon W100 GPU?

    how times have changed. Intel sold their Arm licence to Marvell, and blew wads of cash on Atom. Intel bought GPUs from ImgTech and screwed up the driver licensing leading to headaches for anyone buying a GMA500 or GMA600 based machine.

    ATI got bought by AMD, and AMD now make Arm chips.

    who could have imagined all that?

    Leave a comment:


  • liam
    replied
    Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post

    More like lack of customers. Samsung is the last big vendor to use Mali GPU cores and should http://www.techspot.com/news/66296-s...-gpu-tech.html come true, that is about to come to an end as well.
    I'd expect that with mediatek, allwinner, hisilicon (kirin), and rockchip all using mali gpus they can probably manage to keep the ac on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Awesomeness
    replied
    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    lack of current open-source drivers due to lack of customer demand...
    More like lack of customers. Samsung is the last big vendor to use Mali GPU cores and should http://www.techspot.com/news/66296-s...-gpu-tech.html come true, that is about to come to an end as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • d4ddi0
    replied
    The situation sounds pretty dire.

    Pretty much unsupportable even if one didn't care at all about software freedom.
    Every Mali board vendor has their own board/revision specific binaries with extra restrictions and support for decoding hardware not from Mali, which they know nothing about.

    In addition, They do not upstream their kernel kms driver, and as a result dts bindings are all vendor specific as well.

    The presenter said ARM graphics views the userspace driver as a _product_ they _sell_ to hardware vendors.
    Come on, ARM! The hardware is the product! You are being left in the dust because you fail to leverage the community process which works.

    That sounds like the root of the problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • LoveRPi
    replied
    The problem is the business model which ARM has built itself around. They split up licensing of IP into numerous chunks for both hardware and software. For example, if you license a 3D GPU architecture, you do not automatically get the software IP. The software IP is separately licensed for different operating systems and APIs. For example, you can get the driver support for Linux but not Android. It is not as fine grain down to the API but that's starting to happen with Vulkan/OpenCL/Compute because they require massive amounts of work in software. Some hardware vendors do not want to pay for the software bits that they have no paying customers for. It hard to wrap your head around because ARM's model is the very opposite model to the buffet model that consumers are driving towards.
    Last edited by LoveRPi; 11 March 2017, 10:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by bug77 View Post
    Nvidia's driver for Tegra is actually open
    and not written by nvdidia if we are talking about mesa

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    nvidia probably just doesn't have many boards
    Nvidia's driver for Tegra is actually open

    Leave a comment:


  • c117152
    replied
    TLDR: Broken on all fronts.

    Leave a comment:


  • willmore
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    Another possible explanation is that they are using third party stuff under license and this prevents them from opening it up. (this is the usual reason in this field)

    Although this is a sensible explanation on its own right, while "afraid of patent trolls" is plain bs, so who knows, maybe that's just the lecturer's own answer under pressure and not ARM's.
    I agree with the third party issue completely, that's commonly stated by other vendors in similar situations. But they didn't claim that in this case. I'm not going to make up excuses for them.

    It's probably what legal told them to say if anyone asked. It makes them sound like they're trying not to be a victim--and hence being a victim. Then hoping that people have sympathy for them because 'poor ARM is being bullied by all of those mean pattent trolls'. Yeah, not buying it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X