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

  • Originally posted by duby229 View Post
    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.
    OK, I don't think I can help here. You are just making stuff up, posting it over and over again, and ignoring what we actually say.
    Last edited by bridgman; 01-23-2016, 03:08 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by bridgman View Post

      OK, I don't think I can help here. You are just making stuff up, posting it over and over again, and ignoring what we actually say.
      What exactly do you think I made up?

      Do you refuse to recognize that lack of out of box support for GCN 1.0 and GCN 1.1 will in fact be a problem. And the lack of such -will- backfire on you?
      That Option b: is so highly unlikely that it can be discounted immediately?
      That the only option that makes sense for AMD to implement is option c:?
      That AMD is actively hostile against Option c: and blames kernel policies for their hostilities?

      It's a slippery slope that will leave you with no options. Right now at least you have c: and under the most unlikeliest terms, perhaps b:.

      EDIT: Also just the fact by itself that you made up option a:, which never was an option, and option b:, which is so unlikely that it almost certainly won't happen. And then you put the only real option at the back of the list and tried to minimize it. It must be sabotage.
      Last edited by duby229; 01-23-2016, 03:22 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by duby229 View Post
        What exactly do you think I made up?

        Do you refuse to recognize that lack of out of box support for GCN 1.0 and GCN 1.1 will in fact be a problem. And the lack of such -will- backfire on you?
        Since we never said anything about not having out of box support for GCN 1.0 and 1.1 then either you made this up or misread Michael's article.


        Originally posted by duby229 View Post
        That Option b: is so highly unlikely that it can be discounted immediately?
        That the only option that makes sense for AMD to implement is option c:?
        These are just opinions. I don't agree with them but I'm OK with you making them up as long as you don't get upset with *us* as a result of *your* opinions.

        Originally posted by duby229 View Post
        That AMD is actively hostile against Option c: and blames kernel policies for their hostilities?
        This one you are totally making up.

        The only things we have said are (a) adding SI support to amdgpu will be somewhat messy because the SI HW handled by the kernel driver is more like NI than like CI, and (b) the CURRENT state of upstream defaults (which have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our future plans for supporting SI/CI in amdgpu) is a consequence of Linus's policy that new kernels need to be able to replace older kernels without breaking userspace dependencies.

        You also forgot the most important one:

        Originally posted by duby229 View Post
        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.
        This seems to be completely made up as well (or, again, based on misreading Michael's article).
        Last edited by bridgman; 01-23-2016, 04:09 PM.

        Comment


        • Curses, moderated again. In the meantime:

          Originally posted by duby229 View Post
          What exactly do you think I made up?

          1. Do you refuse to recognize that lack of out of box support for GCN 1.0 and GCN 1.1 will in fact be a problem. And the lack of such -will- backfire on you?
          2. That Option b: is so highly unlikely that it can be discounted immediately?
          3. That the only option that makes sense for AMD to implement is option c:?
          4. That AMD is actively hostile against Option c: and blames kernel policies for their hostilities?
          5. It's a slippery slope that will leave you with no options. Right now at least you have c: and under the most unlikeliest terms, perhaps b:.

          ... and you left out:

          6. 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.
          We never talked about not supporting GCN 1.0 and/or 1.1, so #1 is either made up or based on misreading Michael's article.

          #2 #3 and #5 are your opinions, I don't agree with them but I don't have a problem with you saying them. I have said multiple times that (c) is more likely but (b) might get us a broadly deployable solution 6 months faster, which is attractive.

          #4 seems made up, both parts

          #6 again seems made up, or at least based on misreading Michael's article.

          Going off to shovel snow for a while before the temperature drops again and it all turns into ice.
          Last edited by bridgman; 01-23-2016, 03:45 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by bridgman View Post
            Curses, moderated again. In the meantime:



            We never talked about not supporting GCN 1.0 and/or 1.1, so #1 is either made up or based on misreading Michael's article.

            #2 #3 and #5 are your opinions, I don't agree with them but I don't have a problem with you saying them. I have said multiple times that (c) is more likely but (b) might get us a broadly deployable solution 6 months faster, which is attractive.

            #4 seems made up, both parts

            #6 again seems made up, or at least based on misreading Michael's article.
            And not a single answer.

            Well, yeah, Of course I do expect AMD to support those cards in some way eventually, But I'm pretty sure the implication was launch day support. I may not have said launch day support, but it was obviously implied. You can mince words all day, but the value and meaning remains.

            I guess in a way my interpretation of what you said is in fact my own opinion. However what you said is not my opinion, it is what you said. What you said leaves me no choice but to believe that you blame the Linux devs for their policy of one driver in kernel per hardware device. -AND- you have used that hostility as an excuse repeatedly in this thread.

            So, what the the hell -IS- the plan then? Wait and see? How long? You must have known a long time ago, why didn't the plan get started when you realized it would be a problem? Why wait until a negative article gets released?

            EDIT: I know, AMD always waits to fix problems until a negative article gets released.
            Last edited by duby229; 01-23-2016, 03:49 PM.

            Comment


            • You asked exactly what I thought you made up, and I answered (#1, #4 and #6). What answer were you expecting ?

              A lot of your beliefs seem to be based on a statement you think twriter made, can you please provide a link ?

              The rest of your post isn't making much sense. There is no "policy of one driver in kernel per hardware device", however there is (a) a policy of only one *default* driver per hardware device (otherwise system behaviour would depend on quirks of the init subsystem) and (b) a policy that new kernels need to be able to replace old kernels without breaking userspace.

              One consequence of those policies is that you can't quickly change default drivers unless they have identical user-kernel interfaces, and since one of the reasons for starting a new driver was to change the user-kernel interface that does explain the current state of upstream defaults. I don't know how you twist that into "hostility" though -- I have never disagreed with the policies and have explained a few times why they are important.

              That said, the policies do not affect what we can do with out of tree drivers (and we have already said multiple times that initial Vulkan support will be via out of tree drivers) and do not affect what we can do upstream in the future although they do make changing driver defaults more complicated and more time consuming.

              The plan is what we have said multiple times. VI and CI on amdgpu, initially via out-of-tree driver builds, SI TBD but using libdrm-amdgpu interfaces.

              Comment


              • Moderated again. The only part I didn't cover in previous post is :

                Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                So, what the the hell -IS- the plan then? Wait and see? How long? You must have known a long time ago, why didn't the plan get started when you realized it would be a problem? Why wait until a negative article gets released?

                EDIT: I know, AMD always waits to fix problems until a negative article gets released.
                This would be another case of you making stuff up then getting mad at us because you don't like what you made up. The planning was *started* long ago, it just didn't happen to be *finished* (for SI) by the time Chris & Graham talke to Michael.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                  Moderated again. The only part I didn't cover in previous post is :



                  This would be another case of you making stuff up then getting mad at us because you don't like what you made up. The planning was *started* long ago, it just didn't happen to be *finished* (for SI) by the time Chris & Graham talke to Michael.
                  What did I make up now? Apparently everything you say is something I made up. Pretty neat trick.

                  Since it's plainly obvious that you have hostility towards phoronix, why doesn't AMD release press news at it's own site? But instead you choose to wait for an obviously hostile website to release obviously hostile news. You know it's going to happen. And yet AMD still maintains a policy of keeping it's mouth shut.

                  When was the planning started, who's part of it, what is the plan, etc, etc.... THESE ARE THINGS NOBODY KNOWS YET, EXCEPT YOU. We can't all be psychic.

                  It's damn surprising that I'm having to tell you this.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                    Moderated again. The only part I didn't cover in previous post is :



                    This would be another case of you making stuff up then getting mad at us because you don't like what you made up. The planning was *started* long ago, it just didn't happen to be *finished* (for SI) by the time Chris & Graham talke to Michael.
                    Mr. Bridgman, tell as first when we can have Vulkan even for one GPU, and then you can tell as which one.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                      What did I make up now? Apparently everything you say is something I made up. Pretty neat trick.
                      If you are claiming I said these things, please provide links. I have asked multiple times now.

                      Originally posted by duby229 View Post
                      Since it's plainly obvious that you have hostility towards phoronix, why doesn't AMD release press news at it's own site? But instead you choose to wait for an obviously hostile website to release obviously hostile news. You know it's going to happen. And yet AMD still maintains a policy of keeping it's mouth shut.

                      When was the planning started, who's part of it, what is the plan, etc, etc.... THESE ARE THINGS NOBODY KNOWS YET, EXCEPT YOU. We can't all be psychic.
                      If you don't know, and you're not psychic, why do you post statements claiming to know our plans and criticizing us for them ?

                      If you're just saying that in the absence of public statements people are going to make guesses that's fair, but (a) none of the vendors are saying much until the NDA lifts other than discussions with developers also under NDA, and (b) it doesn't explain why you keep repeating those guesses even after we have made public statements to the contrary.
                      Last edited by bridgman; 01-23-2016, 07:07 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X