Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Intel Drops Mode-Setting Rework Patch Bomb

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eugeni_dodonov View Post
    So once again it came to gallium vs non-gallium battle... I kinda don't have much more to say about it that I haven't already said before - we do not intend to work on Gallium because it does not seems the best way to write 3d driver to us.
    Hi Eugeni,

    is it possible to point me to your post(ings) about the details
    why "it does not seems the best way to write 3d driver"?
    This sounds interesting.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eugeni_dodonov View Post
    So once again it came to gallium vs non-gallium battle... I kinda don't have much more to say about it that I haven't already said before - we do not intend to work on Gallium because it does not seems the best way to write 3d driver to us. And I honestly don't think there is any advantage of throwing away the i965 driver that works, just for the sake of rewriting it from scratch with gallium backend.

    However - all the code is open, all the documentation on how the hardware works is already available up to the Ivy Bridge generation GPUs, so nothing prevents someone from simple writing a i965g driver again. Please, feel free to do so - this is all open-source!
    Well, to be honest, the idea behind Gallium is to create 1 general codebase that everyone shares, so I don't think anyone would argue too much that it is a superior way of writing a driver, compared to writing one from scratch entirely for your own hardware.

    The point of Gallium is to reduce labor for hardware that lacks the resources that Intel can put out.

    From that point of view, it is unfortunate that Intel's work doesn't benefit other hardware as much as it could. As someone using the r600g driver, that directly includes myself.

    However, from an Intel POV the most important thing is your own driver, and I can understand that even if I don't particularly like it.

    Though if you did have Gallium support, you'd already have support for certain things (like OpenCL, among others) that your driver currently doesn't have. So it's not entirely a 1-way street.
    Last edited by smitty3268; 07-06-2012 at 02:19 AM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    956

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    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.
    POWER is used in IBM RS6000 series and are powerful chips...these should be quite suited for the high end deslktops and laptops. If I remember correctly IBM once had reference boards for Power that are in a desktop formfactor.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    353

    Default

    The problem here is of course Microsoft. Windows does not yet support PowerPC. The Linux desktop market is of course too small to invest in special hardware for it.

    About hardware being closed, I don't care about that if my hardware works with open-source software. And Intel hardware does that.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertP View Post
    The problem here is of course Microsoft. Windows does not yet support PowerPC. The Linux desktop market is of course too small to invest in special hardware for it.

    About hardware being closed, I don't care about that if my hardware works with open-source software. And Intel hardware does that.
    Didn't PowerPC effectively died years ago with Apples departure from PPC?
    IBM Power != PowerPC

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropy View Post
    Didn't PowerPC effectively died years ago with Apples departure from PPC?
    IBM Power != PowerPC
    Well PowerPC was a variant of the POWER architecture and is still in use in quite a few military applications but as time moves on those systems are being upgraded to other power variants for the most part.

Posting Permissions

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