Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD's Vulkan Driver Will Only Work With The AMDGPU Kernel Driver

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    That leaves only c: and only AMD is in a position to make that happen.
    ... because being open source means that only the HW vendor can work on drivers ??? You're not really being serious, are you ?

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by bridgman View Post

      I have said that we have pretty much rejected (a) but I have emphatically NOT said that (b) requires contributions outside of AMD.

      Where do you think you read that ?



      Seriously, what makes you think option (b) means "AMD doesn't have to support their hardware" ? And again, what makes you think that option (b) has anything to do with relying on outside contributions ?
      Ok, fine. In that case, for an end user, b: is -exactly- the same as c:... Again, the bottom line is out of box Vulkan support. I was reasonably certain that Mr, Writers posts at the minimum implied that AMD would not pursue option b: themselves, but would allow community contributions to be considered. Which is not at all what you just said.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by bridgman View Post

        ... because being open source means that only the HW vendor can work on drivers ??? You're not really being serious, are you ?
        Show me a history of AMD's drivers being developed successfully by anyone but AMD themselves? You remember before 2007 don't you? Do you really want to let you drivers fall into that position again? That is exactly what relying on community contributions will lead to.
        Last edited by duby229; 01-23-2016, 02:13 PM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by duby229 View Post

          Show me a history of AMD's drivers being developed successfully by anyone but AMD themselves? You remember before 2007 don't you? Do you really want to let you drivers fall into that position again? That is exactly what relying on community contributions will lead to.
          How about all the recent r600g work, such as gaining fp64, tessellation support, and GL4?

          Isn't that pretty much the equivalent? After all, bridgman isn't saying these drivers would have to be built from scratch with no AMD documentation at all. It'd just be extending support from the existing drivers.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post

            How about all the recent r600g work, such as gaining fp64, tessellation support, and GL4?

            Isn't that pretty much the equivalent? After all, bridgman isn't saying these drivers would have to be built from scratch with no AMD documentation at all. It'd just be extending support from the existing drivers.
            I guess my advice would be to prove me wrong. I don't think the community outside of AMD devs will actually do it. But if you think it can be done and you can do it, then please, by all means go for it.

            At best it's wishful thinking and at worst it's sabotage. I don't know if someone is just dumb or evil.
            Last edited by duby229; 01-23-2016, 02:30 PM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by duby229 View Post
              Ok, fine. In that case, for an end user, b: is -exactly- the same as c:... Again, the bottom line is out of box Vulkan support.
              Ding ding ding !!! Exactly.

              Originally posted by duby229 View Post
              I was reasonably certain that Mr, Writers posts at the minimum implied that AMD would not pursue option b: themselves, but would allow community contributions to be considered. Which is not at all what you just said.
              The only post from Tim I could find was in response to a question about "whether AMD could implement pre-VI support in upstream amdgpu but have it disabled via Kconfig", where Tim said "that is exactly what we have today for CI". Nothing related to community contributions being required.

              Any chance you could point me to the post ?

              Comment


              • #97
                Auugh, now even my short posts are being moderated.
                Last edited by bridgman; 01-23-2016, 02:44 PM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                  Show me a history of AMD's drivers being developed successfully by anyone but AMD themselves? You remember before 2007 don't you?
                  There's actually been quite a lot of good work by non-AMD developers - you can't really trivialize the situation into "AMD doesn't do anything" or "AMD does everything". The truth is somewhere in between -- AMD is the largest contributor, but there is also a strong and active community.

                  That balance between vendor and community seems to be fairly unusual... perhaps that's why people have trouble recognizing it.

                  Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                  Do you really want to let you drivers fall into that position again? That is exactly what relying on community contributions will lead to.
                  Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                  I guess my advice would be to prove me wrong. I don't think the community outside of AMD devs will actually do it. But if you think it can be done and you can do it, then please, by all means go for it. At best it's wishful thinking and at worst it's sabotage. I don't know if someone is just dumb or evil.
                  With respect, I'm pretty sure that the only person talking about relying on community contributions is you.
                  Last edited by bridgman; 01-23-2016, 02:43 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by bridgman View Post


                    I'm pretty sure that the only person talking about relying on community contributions is you.
                    No, In fact I was replying to you. Do I really need to quote you? I can of course, but why?

                    So where we are right now is, refusal to recognize that there is a problem, that the problem is people with GCN 1.0 and GCN 1.1 cards will -not- have out of box Vulkan support. Of the 2 realistic solutions being considered, one of them is highly unlikely, and the other (the one that actually makes sense) AMD is actively hostile against and puts the blame on the kernel developers for it. Their doesn't seem to be any real plan to implement any solution. As of right now it's looking most likely that GCN owners will be sol.

                    The more I look at responses in this thread, the more I'm convinced that it's a matter of sabotage. I just can't imagine someone dumb enough that they couldn't see right through it. It must be sabotage.
                    Last edited by duby229; 01-23-2016, 02:50 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                      No, In fact I was replying to you. Do I really need to quote you? I can of course, but why?
                      Yes, please. A link to the post is probably more important than a quote.

                      As to "why", you are attributing something to me that I don't remember ever saying or thinking, so there's a good chance you are interpreting one of my comments in a way I did not intend.
                      Last edited by bridgman; 01-23-2016, 02:49 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X