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
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.
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; 23 January 2016, 03:22 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by duby229 View PostWhat 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?
Originally posted by duby229 View PostThat 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:?
Originally posted by duby229 View PostThat AMD is actively hostile against Option c: and blames kernel policies for their hostilities?
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 PostTheir 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.Last edited by bridgman; 23 January 2016, 04:09 PM.Test signature
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Curses, moderated again. In the meantime:
Originally posted by duby229 View PostWhat 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.
#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; 23 January 2016, 03:45 PM.Test signature
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View PostCurses, 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.
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; 23 January 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.Test signature
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Moderated again. The only part I didn't cover in previous post is :
Originally posted by duby229 View PostSo, 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.Test signature
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View PostModerated 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.
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 PostModerated 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by duby229 View PostWhat did I make up now? Apparently everything you say is something I made up. Pretty neat trick.
Originally posted by duby229 View PostSince 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'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; 23 January 2016, 07:07 PM.Test signature
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment