Originally posted by duby229
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
AMD's Vulkan Driver Will Only Work With The AMDGPU Kernel Driver
Collapse
X
-
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 ?
Comment
-
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 ?Last edited by duby229; 23 January 2016, 02:13 PM.
Comment
-
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.
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
-
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.
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; 23 January 2016, 02:30 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by duby229 View PostOk, 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.
Originally posted by duby229 View PostI 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.
Any chance you could point me to the post ?Test signature
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by duby229 View PostShow me a history of AMD's drivers being developed successfully by anyone but AMD themselves? You remember before 2007 don't you?
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 PostDo 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 PostI 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 bridgman; 23 January 2016, 02:43 PM.Test signature
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View Post
I'm pretty sure that the only person talking about relying on community contributions is you.
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; 23 January 2016, 02:50 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by duby229 View PostNo, In fact I was replying to you. Do I really need to quote you? I can of course, but why?
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; 23 January 2016, 02:49 PM.Test signature
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment