Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: Intel Drops Mode-Setting Rework Patch Bomb

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    51

    Thumbs up

    Oh my god, why can't you guys make discrete graphics cards?
    I'm sick and tired of the half-assed efforts of AMD and the arrogance and complete refusal of Nvidia to support free drivers.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kayden View Post
    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.
    Intel Open Source Team isnīt so OPEN...

    You are all putting the work on your codebase so others can't benefit of it.

    The real deal is Gallium3D, so all drivers could use the same OpenGL implementation.

    If not, you are just boycotting MESA to have a technical advantage of Intel over the rest. Not an ethical way to support Open Source at all.

    Intel is a little better than Nvidia, but not much more

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    879

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timofonic View Post
    Intel Open Source Team isnīt so OPEN...

    You are all putting the work on your codebase so others can't benefit of it.

    The real deal is Gallium3D, so all drivers could use the same OpenGL implementation.

    If not, you are just boycotting MESA to have a technical advantage of Intel over the rest. Not an ethical way to support Open Source at all.

    Intel is a little better than Nvidia, but not much more
    What do you mean with _same_ OpenGL implementation?
    AFAIK just using Gallium does not keep you from writing mostly hardware-specific code.
    So how would AMD, for instance, significantly benefit from intel using Gallium?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropy View Post
    What do you mean with _same_ OpenGL implementation?
    AFAIK just using Gallium does not keep you from writing mostly hardware-specific code.
    So how would AMD, for instance, significantly benefit from intel using Gallium?


    So yes...

    FUCK YOU, INTEL!

    Gallium3D must be the future, for the benefit of the majority and not just corp(s) able to get a legion of high skilled coders for their own drivers with their own OpenGL implementation.
    Last edited by timofonic; 07-04-2012 at 02:38 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    879

    Default

    Well, while it's possible you have a point here - I don't get it.
    What should that schematic explain?

    Does it reveal the relative work required between the different blocks?
    Obviously not.

    Correct me if I'm wrong. It's not that "easy" to have just a - let's say -
    abstracted OpenGL 4.x state tracker and immediately every GPU hardware
    with an existing Gallium driver can profit.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropy View Post
    Well, while it's possible you have a point here - I don't get it.
    What should that schematic explain?

    Does it reveal the relative work required between the different blocks?
    Obviously not.

    Correct me if I'm wrong. It's not that "easy" to have just a - let's say -
    abstracted OpenGL 4.x state tracker and immediately every GPU hardware
    with an existing Gallium driver can profit.
    That's one of the theorical benefits, able to share state trackers between different hardware drivers. Or at least it's what has been explained about Gallium3D since it's inception.

    Anyway, it would be nice to know this from some involved developer(s).

    Obviously, Intel developers will put any kind of excuses like the immaturity of Gallium3D (improve it, then) or unable to "satisfy their needs" (so why AMD and Nouveau are using it?).

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,518

    Default

    Wasn't Michael going to publish some Intel G3D vs Intel Classic benchmarks??

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Intel's OpenGL 3.0 work is really not limited to classic Mesa drivers. Radeon and Nouveau, both Gallium, were also able to take advantage of it. Both drivers quickly had OpenGL 3.0 after Intel's work.
    Intel made the Mesa core support OpenGL 3. Having support in Gallium also was just a small step from there as it was even working in time for the Mesa 8.0 release.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertP View Post
    Intel's OpenGL 3.0 work is really not limited to classic Mesa drivers. Radeon and Nouveau, both Gallium, were also able to take advantage of it. Both drivers quickly had OpenGL 3.0 after Intel's work.
    Intel made the Mesa core support OpenGL 3. Having support in Gallium also was just a small step from there as it was even working in time for the Mesa 8.0 release.
    Even that small step requires work that could be allocated somewhere else.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    Even that small step requires work that could be allocated somewhere else.
    So the small work the radeon and nouveau teams need to do after the Intel guys have added functionality to Mesa core is too much for you, but the huge amount of work Intel would require to switch their driver to gallium is fine?

    I can turn your post directly against you and say: Intel switching requires work that is much better spent bringing new stuff to Mesa.

Posting Permissions

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