Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 104

Thread: 2013: A Good Year For Open-Source AMD?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,284

    Default

    I guess you're right about motivation, although I don't think either agd5f or I expected you to be the one working on the current PM implementation.

    That said, a lot of initial implementations are written knowing that they may be replaced at some point (eg the initial r600g shader compiler), but those initial implementations still provide useful functionality for long enough to justify the effort. For better or for worse I did expect that someone would see PM the same way and push it ahead during the last couple of years, although it's clear now that was a bad assumption on my part.
    Last edited by bridgman; 05-25-2012 at 08:05 AM.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,518

    Default

    Does airlied means that there is not enough documentation to fully exploit the PM capabilities or i am reading something the wrong way??

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Currently the proprietary drivers (all of them AFAIK) replace a lot of the open source graphics stack with proprietary interfaces. Until similar improvements are made in the generic open source framework, which *will* take a fair amount of time and effort, there will be gaps between open source and proprietary stacks. I am agitating internally for our proprietary driver folks to help where they can by pushing enhancements into the common framework where possible, and should know the outcome in early 2013.
    Are you talking about improving the kernel KMS/DRM code to the point Catalyst can use it instead of its own kernel blob or was that about other parts of the graphics stack?

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    Does airlied means that there is not enough documentation to fully exploit the PM capabilities or i am reading something the wrong way??
    It's complicated, so you're probably just reading it correctly

    PM basically works by changing clocks and voltages to make power/performance tradeoffs that match the user's needs.

    For r600 and earlier the driver code set clocks and voltages directly. On most of the more recent hardware generations the driver can still set clocks and voltages directly but each generation has different hardware blocks added which can set those clocks and voltages automatically with guidance from the driver. So far we have not been allowed to release info for those additional HW blocks, although as with UVD we have been working internally to change that. The difference is that we started internal discussions about PM a couple of years ago, concluded that we were not going to get quick approval, and that's why the current PM code was developed.

    The current PM implementation sets clocks and voltages directly so it works on all generations of hardware. My thinking was that the code would need to be worked on anyways to provide better PM for r600 and earlier, and that work would benefit newer hardware as well although there would probably be a need for per-generation work to deal with HW quirks.

    I think Dave is saying "why work on the current code if we know it's going to be thrown away in the future ?", which is fair, but (a) we *don't* know that the work will be thrown away in the future for newer chips (although the chances have been gradually improving over the last year or so), and (b) I believe the same work needs to be done for earlier parts anyways.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    The difference is that we started internal discussions about PM a couple of years ago, concluded that we were not going to get quick approval, and that's why the current PM code was developed.
    Can you share with us _why_ this turns out to be problematic?
    I think it's obvious for the UVD blocks - but for the PM bits?

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    379

    Default Cards which work

    I got myself a netbook ~1 year ago with an AMD C-50 APU and it works great from day one with the open driver.
    In my laptop is an AMD 6970M and this card also works great (it got fried once, because I am an idiot and used conducting heat-paste which spread over the card). The Vendor shipped it to AMD and they replaced it...

    Before that, I had HD4770 which was when the open driver just came out and there were screen corruptions all the time. Compared to that is the open driver close to perfect by now. Just see how much progress got accomplished in only ~3 year?!?

    OK, I am an AMD Fanboy, because the last good Nvidia Card I possessed was a Riva TNT1 (still got a 460M for the laptop as replacement but don't use it)
    Last edited by disi; 05-25-2012 at 10:45 AM.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropy View Post
    Can you share with us _why_ this turns out to be problematic?
    I think it's obvious for the UVD blocks - but for the PM bits?
    Nope. Same goes for all of the programming info... the best we can do is give rough estimates and confidence levels in cases where we have a specific list of tasks to complete before we can release, but this is more like UVD where we don't know what the outcome will be until the last minute.

    As soon as we get to the point where the remaining issues can be discussed in public, we release
    Last edited by bridgman; 05-25-2012 at 11:19 AM.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,733

    Default

    How much secret sauce can there be in a "turn it off" command to UVD?

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    How much secret sauce can there be in a "turn it off" command to UVD?
    Don't think we were talking about turning UVD off -- I was talking about decoding video with it.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    I brought that same thing up a few months ago, but I don't think Michael cares about people breaking the forum rules.
    Actually, it was brought up years ago: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthrea...3-Ban-Qaridium
    Watching him debate with bridgman and display mastery of the below techniques is entertaining once you get used to it. Q is just a part of the Phoronix scenery, like the beer references that some people can't stand.

    Does every fcking thread have to end like this? Guys there is a function called "Ignore List". Use it!
    Ignore List doesn't really work for more advanced trolls, especially those who post at the rate of Q and are skilled at threadjacking.

    The Contrarian Troll. A sophisticated breed, Contrarian Trolls frequent boards whose predominant opinions are contrary to their own. It is important to distinguish between dissenters and actual Contrarian Trolls, however; the Contrarian is not categorized as a troll because of his or her dissenting opinions, but due to the manner in which he or she behaves:

    Contrarian Warning Sign Number One: The most important indicator of a poster's Contrarian Troll status is his constant use of subtle and not-so-subtle insults, a technique intended to make people angry. Contrarians will resist the urge to be insulting at first, but as their post count increases, they become more and more abusive of those with whom they disagree. Most often they initiate the insults in the course of what has been a civil, if heated, debate to that point.

    Contrarian Warning Sign Number Two: Constant references to the forum membership as monolithic. "You guys are all just [descriptor]." "You're a lynch mob." "You all just want to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you."

    Contrarian Warning Sign Number Three: Intellectual dishonesty. This is only a mild indicator that is not limited to trolls, but Contrarians display it to a high degree. They will lie about things they've said, pull posts out of context in a manner that changes their meanings significantly, and generally ignore any points for which they have no ready answers.

    Contrarian Warning Sign Number Four: Accusing the accusers. When confronted with their trolling, trolls immediately respond that it is the accusers who are trolls. Often the Contrarian will single out his most vocal opponent and claim that while he can respect his other opponents, this one in particular is beneath his notice.

    Contrarian Warning Sign Number Five: Attempts to condescend. The Contrarian will seek refuge in condescending remarks that repeatedly scorn his or her critics as beneath notice all the while continuing to respond to them.

    Contrarian Warning Sign Number Six: One distinctive mark of Contrarian Trolls is that every thread in which they dissent quickly devolves into a debate about who is trolling whom. In the course of such a debate the Contrarian will display many of the other Warning Signs mentioned above.

Posting Permissions

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