Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: NVIDIA's PRIME Helpers Are Ready For Linux 3.9

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,375

    Default NVIDIA's PRIME Helpers Are Ready For Linux 3.9

    Phoronix: NVIDIA's PRIME Helpers Are Ready For Linux 3.9

    Aside from a lot of other exciting DRM driver happenings for the Linux 3.9 kernel, it looks like the DRM "PRIME Helpers" that were conceived by NVIDIA to help them support DMA_BUF in their binary driver will be merged...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    265

    Default

    Finally. It's easy for Linus to say fuck you to Nvidia when the kernel developers works against them by being shitheads.
    Now Nvidia should be able to create optimus support.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    53

    Default

    Nvidia rocks once again and Linus, Cox & GPL nazis can go and four letter word themselves.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GT220 View Post
    Nvidia rocks once again and Linus, Cox & GPL nazis can go and four letter word themselves.
    True.






    ten chars rule bla bla phoronix

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    440

    Default

    Hopefully, nvidia already has most of thier optimus work done on thier end and once these helpers are in place, we'll have a beta release with support next day.

    Also, lets hope that Alan Cox doesn't go and threaten to sue everyone rampage again and "cox block" the helpers as well.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Although I like having open-source infrastructures, when it comes to the end user it doesn't really matter that much whether their GPU driver is os or not. In my opinion the only way we could achieve this is if NVIDIA and other hardware producers would decide to contribute to os drivers themselves(tegra coms to mind); reverse engineering is remarkable but not really sustainable, especially for complex hardware such as GPUs.

    PS. I hope Alan Cox and friends won't throw a tantrum over this just for the sake of suing somebody, considering NVIDIA actually implemented this functionality themselves.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vitiv View Post
    PS. I hope Alan Cox and friends won't throw a tantrum over this just for the sake of suing somebody, considering NVIDIA actually implemented this functionality themselves.
    Why would that be a bad thing?
    Actually, one should hope he does (in some way).
    That would probably clear up the legal situation once for all.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GT220 View Post
    Nvidia rocks once again and Linus, Cox & GPL nazis can go and four letter word themselves.
    Let's pretend that they weren't and let Nvidia link a proprietary BLOb directly into the kerenel internals without making a fuss. A few years down the road some competing company that had contributed code into the drm or dma_buf sections of the kernel could sue NVIDIA and set them back financially and legally. In such a case almost noone would be willing to get close to the kernel. Companies are much more comfortable around Linux when violations of the license are first met with loud and clear warnings, instead of court action. You may not like the GPL, but Linux for better or worse is pretty much stuck with it. If you don't like it, go implement dma_buf on FreeBSD. (Oh that's right, It's several years away from the point where you could even start)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    708

    Default

    Does this have any negative effects compared to simply using DMA_BUFF?

    Next goal. KMS and I will cream myself.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    How does this help them accomplish Optimus?

    I thought it was GPL issues that were the primary stumbling block.

Posting Permissions

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