Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: Intel Drops Mode-Setting Rework Patch Bomb

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,912

    Default Intel Drops Mode-Setting Rework Patch Bomb

    Phoronix: Intel Drops Mode-Setting Rework Patch Bomb

    Daniel Vetter of Intel published a massive "patch bomb" of 43 patches to the Intel open-source Linux graphics driver development list as they prepare to re-work mode-setting within their DRM/KMS driver...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,062

    Default OpenGL

    Intel guys, please OpenGL 4!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Hillsboro, Oregon
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Intel guys, please OpenGL 4!
    We're working on it :) We all desperately want to get there too...there's just an awful lot of work required to pull it off. We should have 3.1 fairly soon...then the next big feature is Geometry Shaders. Once those are done, we'll basically hit 3.3. Then, onwards and upwards... :)

    If people are interested in helping out, one thing that would be extremely useful is adding test cases for Geometry Shaders (3.2) or even Hull and Domain Shaders (4.0) to Piglit, the open source OpenGL validation suite. Tests can be developed using the binary blob drivers, without waiting for us to implement the functionality. Writing tests requires some GL programming knowledge, and reading of the specs, but doesn't require a deep knowledge of Mesa internals, compilers, or the workings of GPU hardware. It's not particularly glamorous, but is extremely useful - writing tests is really the only way to know that our implementation actually works like it's supposed to. Right now, Piglit doesn't have any GL 3.2+ tests, so for every new feature, we're having to develop the driver -and- the test suite from scratch, which can be rather time consuming. Implementing these tests would also be a considerable help to the Radeon and Nouveau developers.

    If anyone's interested, drop a note to the Piglit mailing list.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    171

    Thumbs up My next laptop will be based on IB

    I'm going to support them so my next laptop will by IB based I really like the idea of computer where everything runs out of the box because every driver is integrated in the kernel.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redi44 View Post
    I'm going to support them so my next laptop will by IB based I really like the idea of computer where everything runs out of the box because every driver is integrated in the kernel.
    Yep, I'm still loving my intel ironlake laptop. Intel wireless and intel graphics make thing very nice out of the box I am definitely planning to go intel again when I upgrade in 1-2 years.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,062

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redi44 View Post
    I'm going to support them so my next laptop will by IB based I really like the idea of computer where everything runs out of the box because every driver is integrated in the kernel.
    My next laptop will be Ivy Bridge (or possibly Haswell) based too.
    I also like the idea of every driver is integrated in the kernel with no binary blobs and all devices working out-of-the-box.

    But then there are other things I would like.
    The microarchitecture is closed. The UltraSPARC T1 and T2 microarchitecture is open source under the OpenSPARC project. With Intel (or AMD) that is unfortunately not the case.

    The x86 instruction set architecture is not open. Only AMD and Via have a license, I think Intel refuse to provide anyone a license.
    I want anyone to be able to compete.

    I like Intel, but I x86 and the PC platform is too closed. I feel its not right that the PC should be so closed, I believe it should be more open.
    I think ARM, POWER, SPARC, and MIPS (and other) architectures are more open.
    Other platforms are more open with HyperTransport and Wishbone.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    171

    Unhappy

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    My next laptop will be Ivy Bridge (or possibly Haswell) based too.
    I also like the idea of every driver is integrated in the kernel with no binary blobs and all devices working out-of-the-box.

    But then there are other things I would like.
    The microarchitecture is closed. The UltraSPARC T1 and T2 microarchitecture is open source under the OpenSPARC project. With Intel (or AMD) that is unfortunately not the case.

    The x86 instruction set architecture is not open. Only AMD and Via have a license, I think Intel refuse to provide anyone a license.
    I want anyone to be able to compete.

    I like Intel, but I x86 and the PC platform is too closed. I feel its not right that the PC should be so closed, I believe it should be more open.
    I think ARM, POWER, SPARC, and MIPS (and other) architectures are more open.
    Other platforms are more open with HyperTransport and Wishbone.
    The problem with other architectures is that we do not have computers powerful enough to compete with Intel/AMD. Look at ARM, I would love to buy an ARM powered notebook but even Tegra3 can barely compete with Intel Atom like the N570...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,062

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redi44 View Post
    The problem with other architectures is that we do not have computers powerful enough to compete with Intel/AMD. Look at ARM, I would love to buy an ARM powered notebook but even Tegra3 can barely compete with Intel Atom like the N570...
    Yes, the problem with ARM is that it is too low performance.
    POWER and SPARC may be more powerful but they're mostly in servers, I don't see them in desktops or laptops these days. Also, they probably very expensive.
    MIPS, I don't know.

    Also the problem is with Intel being too closed with the x86 and instruction set, architecture, microarachitecture, FSB, QPI, DMI, chipsets, etc.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    POWER and SPARC may be more powerful but they're mostly in servers, I don't see them in desktops or laptops these days. Also, they probably very expensive.
    There are some sparc and powerpc-based workstations in the wild, but they are rare. And at least the powerpc-based ones seem to have an amazing greed for power, as Greg K-H found out some months ago (https://plus.google.com/111049168280...ts/TKQWfj5ERBa).

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    The x86 instruction set architecture is not open. Only AMD and Via have a license, I think Intel refuse to provide anyone a license.
    Other companies wanting a licence need to pay Intel, meaning they can't compete with the companies that don't have to pay for a licence. AMD and VIA have a licence, because they also licence their technologies to Intel. Intel has patented the core of the x86 instruction set, AMD and VIA hold the patents of some later additions to it: the amd64 architecture for example.

    This is why Microsoft preferred amd64 over Intel Itanium in their desktop OS: else AMD's licence to x86 would have ended in 2009, meaning Intel was the only one still around, allowing the cost of CPU's and computers to rise dramatically.
    Linux users can fairly easily switch to another architecture as most of our software is open, but Windows can't drop x86 because everybody's programs use it.

Posting Permissions

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