Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47

Thread: Radeon Evergreen HDMI Audio Code Is Still M.I.A.

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,548

    Default Radeon Evergreen HDMI Audio Code Is Still M.I.A.

    Phoronix: Radeon Evergreen HDMI Audio Code Is Still M.I.A.

    For those that haven't noticed, the open-source Radeon Linux graphics driver still lacks HDMI audio support for the Radeon HD 5000 "Evergreen" series and newer graphics processors. This has been sought after for many months, but even with the Linux 3.2 kernel, AMD still doesn't have to go-ahead with the open-source audio support...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    989

    Default

    The legal reviews would probably be a lot less painful if the only thing to avoid would be giving out hardware-specific information about AMD proprietary IP. As it stands, DRM and IP and patents owned by other companies are littered all throughout AMD's ASICs. So it's like a legal minefield, and AMD's lawyers have to navigate through it.

    I wish a company could make a competitive 3d chipset that isn't patent-encumbered; doesn't contain IP licensed from other companies; and contains no DRM. And on top of that the company is open-source friendly. They would probably release enough information to make a fully functional driver for all components of the hardware in these circumstances, and just hide enough information so their competitors couldn't (easily) use information in the driver to create better hardware that outpaces the company that released the driver (as that would be counterproductive).

    And yes, that does mean I'd be willing to live without hardware video encoding/decoding by the chipset, in particular all the MPEG crap standards. I do want WebM and Theora in hardware, but the CPU in my box is plenty powerful for decoding 1080p in virtually any format, proprietary or no. I just don't see what value video encoding/decoding brings, when you can easily do so in hardware using shaders, or entirely in software (and in both those cases, people who do want to use proprietary codecs can purchase legally licensed software implementations of them, or hardware-based implementations that run as a shader, which is still software).

    I also think that said company should refuse to implement any display/audio standards that require DRM, and refuse to implement the DRM component if it's optional. This will send a strong message to the media cartels that their encumbered technology is not wanted.

    Since AMD is the underdog (they only control ~27% of the desktop graphics market from the recent Steam hardware survey, and even less of the CPU market), you'd think they'd be the company to take on this kind of liberal strategy, to differentiate themselves from Big Green and Big Blue who tend to out-pace them at every turn, both in terms of sales and top-end performance. But AMD only has one foot in the freedom pool; the other foot is standing on proprietary quicksand, which is quickly pulling the entire company down.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    The legal reviews would probably be a lot less painful if the only thing to avoid would be giving out hardware-specific information about AMD proprietary IP. As it stands, DRM and IP and patents owned by other companies are littered all throughout AMD's ASICs. So it's like a legal minefield, and AMD's lawyers have to navigate through it.

    I wish a company could make a competitive 3d chipset that isn't patent-encumbered; doesn't contain IP licensed from other companies; and contains no DRM. And on top of that the company is open-source friendly. They would probably release enough information to make a fully functional driver for all components of the hardware in these circumstances, and just hide enough information so their competitors couldn't (easily) use information in the driver to create better hardware that outpaces the company that released the driver (as that would be counterproductive).

    And yes, that does mean I'd be willing to live without hardware video encoding/decoding by the chipset, in particular all the MPEG crap standards. I do want WebM and Theora in hardware, but the CPU in my box is plenty powerful for decoding 1080p in virtually any format, proprietary or no. I just don't see what value video encoding/decoding brings, when you can easily do so in hardware using shaders, or entirely in software (and in both those cases, people who do want to use proprietary codecs can purchase legally licensed software implementations of them, or hardware-based implementations that run as a shader, which is still software).

    I also think that said company should refuse to implement any display/audio standards that require DRM, and refuse to implement the DRM component if it's optional. This will send a strong message to the media cartels that their encumbered technology is not wanted.

    Since AMD is the underdog (they only control ~27% of the desktop graphics market from the recent Steam hardware survey, and even less of the CPU market), you'd think they'd be the company to take on this kind of liberal strategy, to differentiate themselves from Big Green and Big Blue who tend to out-pace them at every turn, both in terms of sales and top-end performance. But AMD only has one foot in the freedom pool; the other foot is standing on proprietary quicksand, which is quickly pulling the entire company down.
    yes true and I'm really sure they losing money on the Linux market.
    I am a person willing to spend a lot of money on hardware but if a HD4770 works with opensource driver's and the HD6970 is useless in practice because no sound, then who is so stupid and give out money for ne new card?
    The only upgrade option is to buy a used hd4870 on ebay.

    but MAD-AMD calculate different= dirty slush(microsoft,hollywood) VS losing money on the linux market.

    Dirty Slush wins.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Unfortunately I've bought netbook with AMD E-450, and so with integrated HD6320

    Fortunately expect patches ~tomorrow

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    The real problem with AMD, and specifically PR people like Bridgman is they want to have their cake and eat it to when it comes to denying responsibility for their share of problems like this.

    Willfully sign a contract with Microsoft, Apple, and Hollywood to shut out operating systems that respect the user.

    Act like it is not their fault that the habitually unnamed "meanies" that we all know are Microsoft, Apple, and Hollywood "won't let AMD" document their own cards. They tied their own hands and want to frame the situation as being simply "our hands are tied".

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Willfully sign a contract with Microsoft, Apple, and Hollywood to shut out operating systems that respect the user.
    Umm.. AMD doesn't write the laws and AMD doesn't have a choice over what Microsoft and the rest of the DRM media cabal choose to implement.

    They want to make money selling hardware. In order to do that they need to have the ability to play back things like Blueray disks and DVDs. In order to do that they must conform to DRM laws like the DMCA. They need to license patented hardware and software and they need to conform to the licensing contracts and patent laws.

    If they don't then they get fined and get injunctions against their products. They might as well close their corporation and fire everybody _right_now_ if they want to follow your advice.

    If it wasn't for DMCA then companies like AMD and others would be happy selling hardware that disregard rules surrounding DRM. But they can't. It's not their choice.

    I know this is just because you have very little or no experience dealing with the real world or realities created by a corrupt governmental system, but...

    When I see people talking like this (basically taking huge unjustified shits on their keyboards) when AMD is obviously putting a good faith effort into being as open as possible I can't help thinking that people talking like this are hypocritical, self-righteous, little ignoramuses with a unjustified inflated sense of entitlement. HOWEVER, I am willing to give you benefit of the doubt and just assume that you don't understand how the world works.

    Just, whatever you do, don't give your money to Nvidia, which is one of the most Pro-Software Patents, Pro-IP, Pro-DRM, Pro-proprietary hardware companies on the planet. It is hard to get worse then Nvidia. You are just helping to justify to the industry that they don't have to give a flying fuck about openness or supporting Linux properly in order to get your cash. You are just justifying to AMD lawyers and everybody else that puts up a roadblock that what the AMD open source folks are doing is entirely unimportant.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaemonFC View Post
    The real problem with AMD, and specifically PR people like Bridgman is they want to have their cake and eat it to when it comes to denying responsibility for their share of problems like this.

    Willfully sign a contract with Microsoft, Apple, and Hollywood to shut out operating systems that respect the user.

    Act like it is not their fault that the habitually unnamed "meanies" that we all know are Microsoft, Apple, and Hollywood "won't let AMD" document their own cards. They tied their own hands and want to frame the situation as being simply "our hands are tied".
    bridgman is more support than PR.

    they claim a low market share for linux and they claim they can not make a lot of money on linux hardware to support it "premium"

    but its a Self-fulfilling prophecy.

    for Linux the radeon driver is the happy-go-lucky driver and every-time i install the catalyst i run into problems and trouble.

    last time i used the catalyst i break my system. hell even the git unstable ppa radeon driver beat the catalyst in robustness.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    316

    Default Almost all ASICs these days are made up of multiple bits of IP.

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    The legal reviews would probably be a lot less painful if the only thing to avoid would be giving out hardware-specific information about AMD proprietary IP. As it stands, DRM and IP and patents owned by other companies are littered all throughout AMD's ASICs. So it's like a legal minefield, and AMD's lawyers have to navigate through it.
    What AMD is free to reveal will vary wi every bit of IP that the integrate into the chip. It isn't just a DRM issue as many so want to believe. This is not to say DRM isn't part of the problem it is just that every bit of IP comes with a contract detailing what AMD can do with it.

    Frankly this is not as big of an issue as it might be with say an ARM based SoC where almost everything on the chip is IP that the vendor doesn't own.
    I wish a company could make a competitive 3d chipset that isn't patent-encumbered; doesn't contain IP licensed from other companies; and contains no DRM. And on top of that the company is open-source friendly. They would probably release enough information to make a fully functional driver for all components of the hardware in these circumstances, and just hide enough information so their competitors couldn't (easily) use information in the driver to create better hardware that outpaces the company that released the driver (as that would be counterproductive).
    OK but then who would buy such a chip? Seriously, people want to play videos on their machines these days and that requires supporting DRM and most likely the purchase of external IP.

    More importantly IP isn't a bad thing in and of itself. IP is a bad thing if the contracts governing that IP are to restrictive. That is not however the case for all IP. IP can be very useful for system designers because it can allow them to put together systems quickly with a high degree of confidence. Think of IP as a modern day TTL circuit, the only difference being that you put them "together" in a CAD system instead of a circuit board.

    In the end IP is no more bad than any other technical marvel. You just need to have access to it if you are doing systems programming.
    And yes, that does mean I'd be willing to live without hardware video encoding/decoding by the chipset, in particular all the MPEG crap standards. I do want WebM and Theora in hardware, but the CPU in my box is plenty powerful for decoding 1080p in virtually any format, proprietary or no. I just don't see what value video encoding/decoding brings, when you can easily do so in hardware using shaders, or entirely in software (and in both those cases, people who do want to use proprietary codecs can purchase legally licensed software implementations of them, or hardware-based implementations that run as a shader, which is still software).
    The problem is how does a company market such a beast? Again what you need or want here doesn't reflect what the majority of the people want. I'm not sure why you believe MPEG is such a problem either but that is another discussion.

    On top of all of this there is very good reason to support hardware video decode. One reason is that it saves a lot of power. For many an energy sipping decoder is more important than 3D acceleration. As to software based decodes there is a real issue of power, but software also requires memory and processor time thus is a big negative for many.

    I also think that said company should refuse to implement any display/audio standards that require DRM, and refuse to implement the DRM component if it's optional. This will send a strong message to the media cartels that their encumbered technology is not wanted.
    Give me a break, the media companies have no choice in this matter and you know it! I have no problem witha DRM free chip but also realize it would fail in the market. The thing is people want to be able to view their latest movies on their computers, as such will buy hardware that supports such activities. The media companies will rightfully demand DRM systems as that is the only thing they have to prevent thefts. Please don't try to convince me thefts wouldn't be a problem.
    Since AMD is the underdog (they only control ~27% of the desktop graphics market from the recent Steam hardware survey, and even less of the CPU market), you'd think they'd be the company to take on this kind of liberal strategy, to differentiate themselves from Big Green and Big Blue who tend to out-pace them at every turn, both in terms of sales and top-end performance. But AMD only has one foot in the freedom pool; the other foot is standing on proprietary quicksand, which is quickly pulling the entire company down.
    OK Steam is a gamers oriented survey. That should tell you something about biases right there. Besides that AMD has been ahead in GPU performance for some time now so you are really out of touch.

    In any event you are looking at this from the wrong standpoint, AMD is in the freedom pool as you put it, but has to work with in real constraints. Just like any other company that does business in the US has to obey the law and the agreements they have with other companies. Instead of filling this forum with all your negativity you really need to look at the positive aspects of AMDs push here. They did a 180 a few years ago with respect to open support and frankly everyone should be happy about that. When it comes right down to it AMD opened up ATI so I really don't know why you are whining so here.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
    OK but then who would buy such a chip? Seriously, people want to play videos on their machines these days and that requires supporting DRM and most likely the purchase of external IP.
    you have no drm problem if you put 100% on illegal sources.

    Therefore it is legitimate to be a pirate.

    to be a pirate is the only true solution.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    316

    Default Yeah being a thief is so socially acceptable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    you have no drm problem if you put 100% on illegal sources.

    Therefore it is legitimate to be a pirate.

    to be a pirate is the only true solution.
    You might as well join the occupy movement. Your reasoning seems to be in sync with those guys.

Posting Permissions

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