Printable View
Phoronix: Intel Drops Mode-Setting Rework Patch Bomb
Daniel Vetter of Intel published a massive "patch bomb" of 43 patches to the Intel open-source Linux graphics driver development list as they prepare to re-work mode-setting within their DRM/KMS driver...
http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTEzMjA
Intel guys, please OpenGL 4!
We're working on it :) We all desperately want to get there too...there's just an awful lot of work required to pull it off. We should have 3.1 fairly soon...then the next big feature is Geometry Shaders. Once those are done, we'll basically hit 3.3. Then, onwards and upwards... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by uid313
If people are interested in helping out, one thing that would be extremely useful is adding test cases for Geometry Shaders (3.2) or even Hull and Domain Shaders (4.0) to Piglit, the open source OpenGL validation suite. Tests can be developed using the binary blob drivers, without waiting for us to implement the functionality. Writing tests requires some GL programming knowledge, and reading of the specs, but doesn't require a deep knowledge of Mesa internals, compilers, or the workings of GPU hardware. It's not particularly glamorous, but is extremely useful - writing tests is really the only way to know that our implementation actually works like it's supposed to. Right now, Piglit doesn't have any GL 3.2+ tests, so for every new feature, we're having to develop the driver -and- the test suite from scratch, which can be rather time consuming. Implementing these tests would also be a considerable help to the Radeon and Nouveau developers.
If anyone's interested, drop a note to the Piglit mailing list.
I'm going to support them so my next laptop will by IB based :) I really like the idea of computer where everything runs out of the box because every driver is integrated in the kernel.
Yep, I'm still loving my intel ironlake laptop. Intel wireless and intel graphics make thing very nice out of the box :) I am definitely planning to go intel again when I upgrade in 1-2 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redi44
Intel, thank you so much for all the great Linux and open source work. You guys rock! :D
My next laptop will be Ivy Bridge (or possibly Haswell) based too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redi44
I also like the idea of every driver is integrated in the kernel with no binary blobs and all devices working out-of-the-box.
But then there are other things I would like.
The microarchitecture is closed. The UltraSPARC T1 and T2 microarchitecture is open source under the OpenSPARC project. With Intel (or AMD) that is unfortunately not the case.
The x86 instruction set architecture is not open. Only AMD and Via have a license, I think Intel refuse to provide anyone a license.
I want anyone to be able to compete.
I like Intel, but I x86 and the PC platform is too closed. I feel its not right that the PC should be so closed, I believe it should be more open.
I think ARM, POWER, SPARC, and MIPS (and other) architectures are more open.
Other platforms are more open with HyperTransport and Wishbone.
The problem with other architectures is that we do not have computers powerful enough to compete with Intel/AMD. Look at ARM, I would love to buy an ARM powered notebook but even Tegra3 can barely compete with Intel Atom like the N570...Quote:
Originally Posted by uid313
Yes, the problem with ARM is that it is too low performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redi44
POWER and SPARC may be more powerful but they're mostly in servers, I don't see them in desktops or laptops these days. Also, they probably very expensive.
MIPS, I don't know.
Also the problem is with Intel being too closed with the x86 and instruction set, architecture, microarachitecture, FSB, QPI, DMI, chipsets, etc.
There are some sparc and powerpc-based workstations in the wild, but they are rare. And at least the powerpc-based ones seem to have an amazing greed for power, as Greg K-H found out some months ago (https://plus.google.com/111049168280...ts/TKQWfj5ERBa).Quote:
Originally Posted by uid313