Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Clarifications On Poulsbo's Gallium3D Driver

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,237

    Default Clarifications On Poulsbo's Gallium3D Driver

    Phoronix: Clarifications On Poulsbo's Gallium3D Driver

    Yesterday we reported on a new Linux driver coming for Intel's Poulsbo chipset that is currently notorious on Linux. This graphics processor is found in many Atom-powered netbooks, but its binary driver is a mess...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NzY2NA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    If it's not Open, it's not interesting as a driver. I'm all for (quality) proprietry software on Linux, especially in spaces with no FOSS counterparts of equal quality (eg games), so long as it is not part of the core stack.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    134

    Default Binary blobs galore

    Splitting a binary blob into three binary "plugins" is like rearranging the decks on the Titanic. The fact that Intel is using PowerVR for their next-gen chipsets shows they're not serious about open source software. Else they would have used something that they could open source, like their in-house chipsets.

    I hope the three-blobbed DRM gets rejected from the kernel, again.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    114

    Default

    At this point my very expensive Panasonic CF-U1 Menlow MID is a BRICK because I don't have time to sort all this crap out. I'm pissed at Intel because I thought their name on the video chip meant it would Just Work under Linux. At this point, I will settle for distro's (Fedora in my case) shipping with any open source driver that can set the damn screen resolution right, and let me run a web browser and my desktop. If I tolerated closed source crap, I would just stick Vista back on the thing.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    71

    Default

    I guess this goes to show that being "open" and "free" are not top priorities for any company, not even Intel, and everything they do is just for PR. This seemed promising in the beginning, yet after the details settled it's sad, sad, sad (once for each binary blob that is needed for the "open" part to function)... There must certainly be a lot of high-quality intellectual "property" being protected here -- nVidia and ATI must be shaking at the thought of the awesome PowerVR chip, and probably spending millions to find it's well-guarded secrets :-/

    Quote Originally Posted by stan View Post
    I hope the three-blobbed DRM gets rejected from the kernel, again.
    I hope they have the decency to not even try again. They should admit the fact that it's a blob and deal with it clearly like nVidia does, don't try to make it seem open when it obviously isn't.

    Seeing this only makes my respect and admiration for AMD and what they did to grow each day (that coming from someone who's not using any of their products atm). Yes, they're in it for the PR as well, but at least they clearly state what is open, what is closed, what could be opened in the future and so on. This whole Poulsbo mess is unbecoming for a company like Intel.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    153

    Default

    I don't work for Intel.

    Intel has always intended to release open-source drivers for this chipset; they've been working behind closed doors for months upon months trying to get Imagination to release docs. The Poulsbo situation may be several heaping gobs of shit, but Intel's been working hard to increase the documented-code-to-shit ratio. Blaming them for this shit is taking a simple and untrue view of the situation.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MostAwesomeDude View Post
    I don't work for Intel.

    Intel has always intended to release open-source drivers for this chipset; they've been working behind closed doors for months upon months trying to get Imagination to release docs. The Poulsbo situation may be several heaping gobs of shit, but Intel's been working hard to increase the documented-code-to-shit ratio. Blaming them for this shit is taking a simple and untrue view of the situation.
    First of all thanks for the insight.

    I never heared of a company called Imagination, but if I was in charge of Imagination I would think twice about not listening to a huge customer like Intel because it's not like there will be any other serious customers for that kind of shitty GPU's, ever.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    762

    Default

    makes me wonder why intel used those GPUs in the first place, if driver support is aproblem. Why didn't they install their own GPUs?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,607

    Default

    When you sum it up, the only opensource parts are the DRM and and the 2d driver. I guess they think thats enough to push the DRM mainline

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    147

    Default

    I don't care much whether my drivers are closed or open. I just want them to be solid.

    Interestingly, in that regard, I think that if all drivers were closed, the kernel developers would be forced to keep stable ABI and APIs. That in turn would mean that I wouldn't have to pray for everything to work as well as before whenever I have to upgrade to a new distro version. It would also mean that the drivers are developed by the same entity that made the hardware in the first place and not some random guy from another organization.

Posting Permissions

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