Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: In Road To OpenCL, R600g LLVM Back-End Arrives

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    how it works to make the code structure of AMDIL compatible with Gallium3D? a simple rewrite? or a automate translating tool? or a chance in Gallium3D ?
    It's just another IR, so I guess we could add entry points / options to the Gallium3D API so that AMD IL could be accepted, but it's not something we are looking at today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    how is this possible in the past the official point was its not possible to use fglrx/catalyst source code in the galium3D driver. or is this only true for graphic stuff?
    In this case the Catalyst compute stack uses LLVM and we're pushing our LLVM changes back wherever possible. Originally the changes were just going to go to the LLVM project but in this case Tom found them useful as a basis for OpenCL / GCN support.

    Normally the flow would be :

    - OpenCL team pushes code back to the LLVM project
    - open source graphics developers pick up changes from the LLVM project, either indirectly (as Mesa picks up new LLVM versions) or directly

    In this case the code was pushed to LLVM and Mesa simultaneously, and consistent with our "30 seconds after approval" habit the code got into a Mesa branch before it hit the LLVM mailing list

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,458

    Default

    popper, I've responded to these statements a few times in the past, guess once more won't hurt.

    Quote Originally Posted by popper View Post
    given the year+ of stated legal review to be put in place to finally open up the UVD decode block for linux use that never seems to actually happen,
    - it's not just legal review, it's technical review related to DRM risk among other things
    - the time-consuming part is not the review, it's what happens when the outcome from the review is "no" and you have to find new approaches & repeat

    Quote Originally Posted by popper View Post
    and the fact that they cant even be bothered to compile and release the OpenCL OpenVideo driver for Linux video decode library that apparently relies on that closed UVD code block, and has existed for the windows SDK for a full year....
    - it's not a question of recompiling, the code has to be *written* for Linux; as you know Windows has its own video framework which is not available under Linux

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    343

    Default

    is this problem to include DRM as closed-source plugin for drivers/players ?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,458

    Default

    This is getting off topic for an LLVM thread but quick answer is that a binary plug-in for an open source driver doesn't give enough protection to make any real difference -- either something is safe enough to release source code or it's not safe enough to release as a plug-in to an otherwise open driver. It seemed like an attractive idea at first but I haven't seen binary plug-ins used for a few years now.
    Last edited by bridgman; 12-11-2011 at 02:06 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    This is getting off topic for an LLVM thread but quick answer is that a binary plug-in for an open source driver doesn't give enough protection to make any real difference -- either something is safe enough to release source code or it's not safe enough to release as a plug-in to an otherwise open driver. It seemed like an attractive idea at first but I haven't seen binary plug-ins used for a few years now.
    A bit OT, but I'm also of the opinion that binary plugins to an OSS application effectively taints the application. If the OSS code is GPLd then the binary plugin is a gpl violation in my opinion... Perfect example, binary linux drivers...

    I know many people who disagree with me mightily, but I also know many people who agree with me mightily. And being a linux community, I'd argue there are more people who agree with me....
    Last edited by duby229; 12-11-2011 at 10:48 PM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    A bit OT, but I'm also of the opinion that binary plugins to an OSS application effectively taints the application. If the OSS code is GPLd then the binary plugin is a gpl violation in my opinion... Perfect example, binary linux drivers...

    I know many people who disagree with me mightily, but I also know many people who agree with me mightily. And being a linux community, I'd argue there are more people who agree with me....
    a) People want to get their job done fast and efficiently

    b) People don't care if the software kills baby kittens everytime they hit the space button if it gets the job done

    c) The rest is bullshit by people whom job has all the OS tools they need

    And the perfect example for this is graphic cards. Anyone that wants 100% performance and features uses the blobs.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,929

    Default

    You mean: they use Windows.

    Because Windows drivers are still better than Linux blobs.

    So if you're using blobs on Linux, you are making sacrifices too. The only question is where you make them: security, performance, ease of maintenance, reliability, integration with your desktop, power consumption, your ethical standards, Digital Restriction Management, etc.

    For many people, FLOSS drivers under Linux provide the best environment.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    343

    Default

    i like open drivers for gpu, more than fglrx, but cant even play quake live on open drivers on radeon 4850.. that suck hard wine cant open even starcraft/pharaoh good with no fglrx. thes are very old games with even no 3d, but still work very very slow, or dont work at all.

    now another restriction, and another

    in future open drivers will only show desktop consume max power, but give you good system integration [and bad svideo output]

    thats not that we are fighting for. I can use binary plugins, need to use it for HP 1020 printers is this any violation? not for me, i need hardware to work. its only plugin you can manualy install [accept to install] same as audio/video codecs. some of them are close source and we still use it. iam not gpl purist i just need pc working.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,929

    Default

    Hrm, I remember playing QuakeLive on my HD 4550 just fine a couple of years ago.

    Is it a framerate issue, or does it refuse to start?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    You mean: they use Windows.

    Because Windows drivers are still better than Linux blobs.

    So if you're using blobs on Linux, you are making sacrifices too. The only question is where you make them: security, performance, ease of maintenance, reliability, integration with your desktop, power consumption, your ethical standards, Digital Restriction Management, etc.

    For many people, FLOSS drivers under Linux provide the best environment.
    Whatever gets the job done

    In some cases its windows in others linux in others mac or whatever

Posting Permissions

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