Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: A GEM-ified TTM Manager For Radeon

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under a rock
    Posts
    60

    Default

    I think it will come down to AMD and Intel deciding on what they as separate companies want to do.

    Intel has the brain power of legacy Linux, meaning they have the people who have been working with Linux since or near to its inception. As Linux becomes more stable, more advanced, more pervasive Intel has the people who know the ins and outs of the older code and advance their projects either building on to or renovating the previous.

    AMD is playing catch up and making great strides. Like Intel, and not nVidia, AMD is both CPU and GPU and the bridges in between. CPU and video have always had this dance of either folding processes together or offloading discreet processes to the separate processors. But with AMD, they have to ramp up their Linux specialists. And from their viewpoint they can either build upon GEM and make their own ATI-to-GEM interpreter or go their own route. It may be a while before they feel confident that they know enough of Linux core to do their own memory manager. But it is certain that the Northbridge and Southbridge days of old are numbered as the interaction of multi-core CPUs and GPUs become more intertwined and the bridges expected to do more than traffic cop work.

    Because they will always be the kid in the hallway, nVidia will always be the one to react to design changes of Intel and AMD. Even if Intel and nVidia share an exclusive development track, Intel will always lead.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Australia
    Posts
    359

    Default

    RE Monkey King:
    Seems to me just human factor then. That experienced Linux guru's make a bigger difference in the long run. Intel have more money to throw at such people. Another guess, but very sure I'm right. Interesting that open source is technically tied to business.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by b15hop View Post
    Interesting that open source is technically tied to business.
    The days of innocence are over Even the Linux kernel devs have practically abandoned the "Free" part of open source are everything is business-oriented.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Albuquerque NM USA
    Posts
    347

    Default

    What on Earth do you expect? People gotta eat. They gotta feed their families. Have you priced BMWs lately?

    As long as Linux remains in the zero revenue mode the bulk of development is going to be paid for by some business somewhere whose motivation for supporting Linux is to leverage their investment against other revenue generating activities.

    Even the Linux kernel devs have practically abandoned the "Free" part of open source are everything is business-oriented.
    Hey...as long as the source is available to the "community", that's all that counts, isn't that the plan? I'm sure there's some kid hiding in his parent's basement right at this minute just about to release a fully-functional, unified, universal replacement for Xserver.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,788

    Default

    Don't forget how this all began: with a kid in his basement trying to check out the features of his 386 since Minix could not.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    437

    Default

    What's wrong with getting paid for writing software?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The intarwebs
    Posts
    385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FunkyRider View Post
    What's wrong with getting paid for writing software?
    Nothing at all, in the direct sense.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    /dev/hell
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Keith's crime was coming up with a new memory management API which the other devs thought was good enough to justify re-implementing parts of their existing code.

    I'm sure there was a bit of "oh crap, if Intel is going this way then we'd better go that way too so we can all stay compatible" feeling but honestly the X devs are a pretty strong-willed lot and I don't think any of them would go along with GEM unless they felt that GEM had something good to offer.

    TTM was very important because it provided enough of a common API for the community to implement (there are prototype Intel, Radeon and Nouveau implementations, possibly more) and to build on (DRI2), but after all the implementation work I think there was some general feeling that "this isn't quite right". GEM seems to have come along at the right time and so it received fairly broad support from the developers, even the ones who had just finished working on TTM.

    Assuming Keith cares about any of this discussion, he might want to work on his "naming skills". If he had called GEM "TTM Reloaded" everyone would be calling him a hero. Same with UXA -- if he called it "EXA re-implemented over a real memory manager, with a different name so I don't over-write the existing EXA files" everyone would be dancing in the streets.
    I like the way you think, I will subscribe to your magazine... if you have one

    and to whom dislike what keith did: "He develops X since 20 years ago, are you sure he doesn't know what he is doing? "

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    devs have practically abandoned the "Free" part of open source
    I'd like to point out that the "free" in "free software" has always been "free as in speech", hence "libre software".

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vighy View Post
    I like the way you think, I will subscribe to your magazine... if you have one

    and to whom dislike what keith did: "He develops X since 20 years ago, are you sure he doesn't know what he is doing? "
    Hehe right, it pissed me off when I read that M. Packard would have surrender to Intel and transform X in an Intel only platform.
    If he would have feel any pressure, I am sure his skills and knowledge are worth enough to find another job, in a more xorg friendly company.
    I am not saying that Intel is more xorg friendly than any other company in the business, but just stop bitching about people who spent their entire life in developing Xorg.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •