AMD Catalyst For Linux On The "Blacklist Of Junk"

[disi]

No. The radeon *hardware* uses proprietary *microcode*, just like most modern CPUs. That microcode happens to be driver-loaded on radeon hardware (and Intel/AMD CPUs) rather than being permanently burned into the chip on other hardware.

Which makes it easier to patch There is a kernel option to get a user space interface to change the microcode 'on the fly' for Intel CPUs... microcode in userspace or something (too lazy to google).

[Lemonzest]

Yeah Microcode patching works for AMD too, with the same program. </offtopic>

[Kano]

@haplo602

I forgot to mention that you should compare the output you get with -l option. Look:

http://ati.cchtml.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528

If you have got such a game maybe try renaming the wine binary (not the wrapper) with another prefix.

[NeoBrain]

A argument could be, 'Is anyone helping AMD/ATI' to develop A1 drivers for Linux?

An argument against this could be "Is anyone hindering AMD/ATI from not doing random crap like disabling features unless your application is called 'compiz'?"
Hint: The answer is no, so why are they doing it anyway?

As a developer myself I can totally feel with that guy and everyone ridiculing him for his rant is just being a clueless douchebag (ofc, Michael grabbing this out after X years is a different story).

[barkas]

nothing wrong here. glGetString(GL_VENDOR) return the ati string on mswin so this is a must be for wine.

Nope. It's just wrong. A driver should never ever do something depending on process name. Possibly they should report ATI in any case - they obviously did not dare to change it on windows, why should they do it for linux?

[bridgman]

permanently burned is a misconception, most Intel and Phenom CPU's can upgrade the microcode, tho it needs to be done on every boot else it falls back to the bios version.

If you read the text you quoted that's exactly what I said...

[crazycheese]

Years ago, AMD also requested how process names are made within the Phoronix Test Suite (i.e. doom3-benchmark vs. d3-benchmark), so maybe I'll run some benchmarks that generate obscure process names to see if the blob is still doing funny checks.

Interesting... This is highly illegal. The largest damage will be done to PTS, because it will not be considered reliable benchmark anymore. I also think it would be nice to generate obscure names every time a blob is used, regardless of manufacturer. Blob can't be trusted. When blob does 3x better frame rate compared to opensource version, the opensource developers will be left wondering and users will be led into wrong impression by benchmark.

This is like doping in sports. It belongs into disqualification, IMHO.

[disgrace]

Nope. It's just wrong. A driver should never ever do something depending on process name. Possibly they should report ATI in any case - they obviously did not dare to change it on windows, why should they do it for linux?

they cant do it on windows or they will break a lot of stuff. they are relying on the process name since a long time even on windows, take a look at the file atiogl.xml . if you know a better way to detect a specific apps tell them.

[GreatEmerald]

they cant do it on windows or they will break a lot of stuff. they are relying on the process name since a long time even on windows, take a look at the file atiogl.xml . if you know a better way to detect a specific apps tell them.

How about a compatibility checkbox in CCC?

[dcc24]

dcc24: do you write a Composite Manager ? My guess is no as if you were, you would just agree.

So what? That developer might be right in saying that, but it still doesn't make this *thing* an actual article with any level of journalistic integrity.