No announcement yet.

VIA Releases New Documentation, But It's Old

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by libv View Post
    With all the lies and bended truths you have been spewing for the last 2.5 years, i won't believe you, i've seen you in action too much.
    OK, your call. Probably not worth discussing any more then. Just a thought though -- if you see everyone who says something you disagree with as a liar after a while you're going to start feeling surrounded by liars.

    Originally posted by libv View Post
    So therefor no docs are being freed at all, not even the ones that were handed to the suse people, and were said to become free. Not even the cute atombios usage docs that we were never handed before early 2008.
    What makes you think that no docs are being freed at all ?

    Originally posted by libv View Post
    But why stop at the coarse sanitizing all the time?
    We don't. For docs like 6xx acceleration we finished the review (which also ended up needing a significant rewrite since the hardware changed a lot after the initial design docs were written), and released two docs. For smaller docs like the DCE 3.x design notes you mentioned we treated them as lower priority since the content was already well understood by the developers and there was working code as well, and low priority stuff is, well, low priority.

    Luc, maybe the big problem here is that when we work on B instead of A you are focusing on the fact we did not do A and wondering if there is some kind of conspiracy behind the decision, rather than thinking about all the time and effort that goes into B. The reality here is that we have finite time and resources and we try to focus on whatever will allow the development community to make the fastest overall progress. Right now that means getting initial documentation and/or code out for things which are not supported in the drivers rather than going back and releasing internal docs which helped to get earlier parts of the driver stack going.

    You don't have to agree with that approach, but it is what we are doing. If you have good arguments for changing those priorities please let us know.

    Originally posted by libv View Post
    So you _are_ trying to hide how the chip is programmed?
    How did you turn my statement (adding register specs to the initial code/header release would add more IP and make the review process take longer) into a statement that were trying to hide how the chip is programmed ?

    Originally posted by libv View Post
    I've heard you say similar openly worded things, even stating blatant bent truths ("I do not know") in front of the SUSE developers, the whole SUSE management food chain (all the way to the current CEO) and some similar setup on the AMD side.
    Sorry, you lost me here. How is "I don't know" a blatant bent truth ? Sometimes I don't know, and then that's what I say.

    Originally posted by libv View Post
    I should've asked you whether you are a betting man, and to what extent you could provide probability estimates to your "i do not know" becoming a "yes there is" or "no there isn't", and then bet you a months of net salary against those odds on your "i do not know" becoming an "yes there is". I would've made a steal just days later.
    I don't do well at gambling so I generally avoid it. If you see a way to make good money off this, let's discuss.

    Originally posted by libv View Post
    So there are such docs, there were such docs for the previous 2 major changes in DCE/atombios. The fact that you openly word it like this now, with all the experience i have had with you, that makes me understand your sentence as: "Yes, there are such docs, and we will claim next week that we just made a happy discovery, which we can release right now, ain't that great?"
    You ask about the doc, I say I don't know but will ask, then a week later maybe I have an answer. Exactly where is the conspiracy in that ? Our software devs don't normally write hardware documentation in the software design docs like they did for the DCE 3 transition, and the hardware documentation normally focuses more on hardware implementation than on programming model.

    Originally posted by libv View Post
    Now you have a choice, either play your usual game, or hide this document from the public forever. But then, you still haven't made the previous docs of the same nature available either.
    Luc, you aren't listening to what I am saying. We have finite resources and we work on what we feel to be the highest priority stuff first. That usually means we focus on documenting things which are *not* supported in the driver ahaed of things which *are* already supported and working in the driver.

    You mentioned atombios docco earlier; we have three working atombios-based implementations plus the disassembler code you guys wrote and published -- do you really see atombios docco as the highest priority right now ? If something is not a high priority, then we are probably *not* going to be working on it in for a while, but please try to focus on what we *are* doing at least as much as the things we are *not* doing yet.

    Originally posted by libv View Post
    Ah, so the gpgpu team, if that still exists in the same guise. They were a combination of AMD and ATI people that was already completely assimilated into AMD even in 2007. And our hope for a while for getting information and docs without you squandering and delaying it.
    If you were hoping to get graphics information from the GPGPU team that probably wasn't a very good plan.

    Originally posted by libv View Post
    So since this was a completely separate team, what was your part in the release of these ISA docs? You were the one who stuck them online, or?
    I had no part in the release of the ISA docs.

    Originally posted by libv View Post
    Your idea of what is a community seems limited to "mostly alex and the redhat guys".
    Add in Novell and independent developers and you've probably got it nailed. I doubt we're making any of them 100% happy.

    Originally posted by libv View Post
    As no-one really is getting access to anything much, especially not any time close to the hardware release (and the time of fglrx support).
    The plan we announced back in Sep 2007 said that we would start working on open source support *after* new products launched, and that fglrx was always going to be the vehicle for launch-time support since it shares common code used across multiple OSes. Again, you don't have to like it but that is what we said we would do, and what we *are* doing.

    We have been able to cut down the time between launch and initial support with each new generation :

    - the open source project started ~2 years after 5xx launched;
    - we started working on 6xx maybe a year after launch, and were able to include 7xx in the same effort
    - work on 7xx work started around launch but that doesn't really count because we didn't have working 6xx code to build on
    - we were able to start on Evergreen support a bit *before* launch *and* had working 7xx code to build on

    In other words, we've gone from being 2 years behind to starting work around launch time. I think that deserves a "Meets expectations" rating at the very least

    Originally posted by libv View Post
    Now, about the statement that you edited out, at the very end of your sentence: "(except for me dying screaming in fire, of course )." I do not think like that. I just want to see you stop twisting truths, stop playing games and stop hiding your own procrastination. But i do realise that this is hard to do, when you're so caught up in all of this, and when you're so used to your current mode of working.
    I am trying to change some aspects of how we work, particularly the 12 hour days. We actually took real vacations over the holidays, first time in almost three years. It was nice.

    Please try to understand that just because you believe one thing and I believe another, that doesn't make me a liar. I don't say things like that about you, please extend me the same respect.
    Last edited by bridgman; 01-16-2010, 01:13 AM.


    • #22
      Fascinating as this discussion is, I'm not 100% sure of it's relevance to VIA doing a doc release.

      From what I've seen, Micheal is being harsh on VIA, but that cynicism is almost certainly not completely unfounded. Actions speak louder than words, and this doc release is certainly better than NOT having the docs, so lets at least thank them for what they have done. Having spoken to BruceChang, I can honestly say that on top of everything bridgman has said about the difficulties of releasing docs there IS a language barrier which won't be helping.

      I have been very happy with my VIA C7-M based netbook, and the only real complaint I have is related to HPs BIOS! (PCI-ids being wrong on a non-VIA component). It's a comfortable desktop with openChrome, and stable enough once I reported my bugs and they were fixed. It might be worth keeping in mind who actually has even halfway credible netbook platforms, because AMD don't, and from what I heard, neither the Intel ones, nor the nVidia ones, actually had adequate FOSS graphics support.


      • #23
        Originally posted by RobbieAB View Post
        Fascinating as this discussion is, I'm not 100% sure of it's relevance to VIA doing a doc release.
        We were trying to say something nice about Via's doc release, but it didn't go so well.


        • #24
          I know you were, but I just felt that the VIA forum was not the right place for libv and you to have a "You said, he said" argument, especially in a thread where we should all be clapping VIA on the back.


          • #25
            What the heck -- at least it keeps the forum busy
            Last edited by bridgman; 01-16-2010, 03:30 PM.


            • #26
              What about VIA CPU docs?

              When will VIA C7/Nano CPU docs be released? Agner Fog seem to need them.