Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: NVIDIA Tries To Put Fence Sync Into X Server 1.10

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,659

    Default NVIDIA Tries To Put Fence Sync Into X Server 1.10

    Phoronix: NVIDIA Tries To Put Fence Sync Into X Server 1.10

    X.Org Server 1.10 was just looking to be a big bug-fix release to the X.Org Server with no major features being introduced, up until the merge window was about to be closed. Then last night it was proposed by Keith Packard, the xorg-server 1.10 release manager, to keep it open a few extra days so that he could finally merge the per-CRTC pixmap support. This work alone is nice and is long awaited, but now NVIDIA's James Jones is calling for pulling another feature that's had code available for months: X Synchronization Fences...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODg2Mg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    450

    Default

    this sounds exciting.

    are they working so hard because of wayland? ^^

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by madjr View Post
    this sounds exciting.

    are they working so hard because of wayland? ^^
    My first thought also
    It's probably business as usual though.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    86

    Default

    These patches have been out for review since well before all this recent Wayland hubbub.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,326

    Default

    I know nvidia's really not too friendly to OSS on the surface and all, but I hope this code makes it in if it follows procedure/standards and useful for nouveau (and others), and doesn't get held back because of politics.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Aachen, Germany
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanL View Post
    I know nvidia's really not too friendly to OSS on the surface and all, but I hope this code makes it in if it follows procedure/standards and useful for nouveau (and others), and doesn't get held back because of politics.
    I think it is the other way around. The OSS community isn't friendly to nvidia. They invent api calls designed to be unusable for nvidia, because of their binary driver. I wouldn't wonder if the patch will be hacked somehow to only work with KMS and stuff and gets rejected til then.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falloutboy View Post
    I think it is the other way around. The OSS community isn't friendly to nvidia. They invent api calls designed to be unusable for nvidia, because of their binary driver. I wouldn't wonder if the patch will be hacked somehow to only work with KMS and stuff and gets rejected til then.
    Are you for real or are you simply trolling?
    "inventing api calls designed to be unstable for nvidia"?

    Have you considered the fact that as an OSS project, Xorg might simply be putting the development <b>open source</b> drivers as their main concern, making a stable API (that might stifle the development of close source drivers) less desirable?
    Oh wait, I assume that you also blame Microsoft for changing the WDM API between releases, right?

    *Sigh*

    - Gilboa
    DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB, GTX780, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711.
    SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F20/x86_64, Dell U2412..
    BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F20/x86-64.
    LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F20/x86_64.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    638

    Default

    s/might stifle the development of close source drivers/might stifle the development of open source drivers/g
    DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE52658V2, 32GB, 4x2TB, GTX780, F20/x86_64, Dell U2711.
    SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 4x2TB, GTX550, F20/x86_64, Dell U2412..
    BACK: Tyan Tempest i5400XT, 2xE5335, 8GB, 3x1.5TB, 9800GTX, F20/x86-64.
    LAP: ASUS N56VJ, i7-3630QM, 16GB, 1TB, 635M, F20/x86_64.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Aachen, Germany
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gilboa View Post
    Are you for real or are you simply trolling?
    "inventing api calls designed to be unstable for nvidia"?
    I didn't say unstable, I said unUSable and was not trolling. If api calls are designed to exclude closed source driver, then you know who isn't friendly to whom...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falloutboy View Post
    I didn't say unstable, I said unUSable and was not trolling. If api calls are designed to exclude closed source driver, then you know who isn't friendly to whom...
    Which API calls are designed to exclude closed source drivers?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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