Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: Will H.264 VA-API / VDPAU Finally Come To Gallium3D?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,118

    Default Will H.264 VA-API / VDPAU Finally Come To Gallium3D?

    Phoronix: Will H.264 VA-API / VDPAU Finally Come To Gallium3D?

    Assuming the student developers participating in this year's Google Summer of Code achieve their work (after getting accepted of course), this year could be very interesting for Mesa / Gallium3D / X. While initially there was the very ambitious OpenGL 4.1 plans in a new Gallium3D state tracker that would be free of Mesa legacy code, that was changed to working on GLSL IR or something smaller (perhaps Clover, as in the long-awaited OpenCL state tracker for Gallium3D). There's also been a proposal for multi-GPU and hot-plugging support. Voiced just now by a French student is to create the -- also much-anticipated -- H.264 VA-API / VDPAU state tracker for Gallium3D drivers...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTI0MQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    Let's hope though that this Gallium3D H.264 state tracker is accepted and that it actually materializes this summer.
    Can't agree more! I wish all the luck to these guys to achieve their goals!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    35

    Default Hats off!

    Hats off to the guy, I just read the original email and the man seems bloody serious about this! I find it particularly convincing that he claims to already have a good understanding of H.264. Lets hope this project gets accepted, and if so, he'll be targeting the VDPAU API. As far as I understand there is already a pretty wide code base using this API making a good testing playground. Also, MythTV uses VDPAU exclusively, which is /my/ dream application...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,514

    Default

    AMD isn't releasing code or specifications for their UVD/UVD2 engines over fear that it could compromise their Digital Rights Management abilities on other platforms.
    This should probably read "AMD hasn't released code or specifications for their UVD/UVD2 engines yet but is investigating whether this can be done safely". Saying "isn't" implies you have more knowledge of our future plans than we do

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,707

    Default

    wasn't there another GSoC project few years back that was trying to do the same thing and in the end we got nothing????

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    This should probably read "AMD hasn't released code or specifications for their UVD/UVD2 engines yet but is investigating whether this can be done safely". Saying "isn't" implies you have more knowledge of our future plans than we do
    unfortunately End User's International Inc cant comment on you're speculation until the NDA (No longer Damned Arsed) end's, or a future public statement of that information is released by You in to the public domain as Linux manager in charge and instigator of that data.

    Oops that Damned UVD legal review question pop's up again.


    so have you actually even started that AMD UVD legal review yet after nearly 12 months of talking about starting it here with me ?

    i didn't check the dates yet but it (didn't even get passed to the legal team ?) it hadn't even got off the starting block something like 4 months ago now according to a post here.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    wasn't there another GSoC project few years back that was trying to do the same thing and in the end we got nothing????
    The Gallium3D infrastructure didn't exist back then.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanL View Post
    The Gallium3D infrastructure didn't exist back then.
    my mistake, it was about xvmc

    http://www.bitblit.org/gsoc/g3dvl/index.shtml

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    wasn't there another GSoC project few years back that was trying to do the same thing and in the end we got nothing????
    What the hell is it with this sense of entitlement?

    Where's your work in this field? Why have we got nothing?

    By the way, the project you're talking about is here and was the start of the pipe-video branch of Mesa.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanL View Post
    The Gallium3D infrastructure didn't exist back then.
    Gallium3D did exist. That's why the video decoding project was called g3dvl.

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
  •