Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 123

Thread: Digging Deeper Into AMD's UVD Code Drop

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Thats a really good point. In the Case of AMD's OSS driver, it won't function without the firmware, so the ability to redistribute it legally is essential. What exactly is AMD stance on distributing the firmware for their cards?

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Deathsimple View Post
    I don't see a reason why it shouldn't work out of the box.

    The currently only problematic generations are RS780/RS880 and RV770/RV790.

    Christian.
    :c It didn't work for me. I downloaded a patched sources from git://people.freedesktop.org/~deathsimple/linux , the uvd-3.9 branch and a the patches for mesa-9.2 from the mail list.
    I would report this but i don't know where. because of DRM think.
    some info just in case someone can help (please):
    dmesg > http://upl.io/lrq31h
    glxinfo > http://upl.io/gknd2j
    /usr/src/linux/.config > http://upl.io/h0r3u8
    vdpauinfo > http://upl.io/3rpmbp
    Xorg.0.log > http://upl.io/hssbd7

    and when i play a video with mplayer2 i get http://upl.io/k3u57z
    and from dmesg http://upl.io/652q1s

    pd: i'm so sorry if somebody got a headache because of my english

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Thats a really good point. In the Case of AMD's OSS driver, it won't function without the firmware, so the ability to redistribute it legally is essential. What exactly is AMD stance on distributing the firmware for their cards?

    From http://people.freedesktop.org/~agd5f...LICENSE.radeon
    REDISTRIBUTION: Permission is hereby granted, free of any license fees,
    to any person obtaining a copy of this microcode (the "Software"), to
    install, reproduce, copy and distribute copies, in binary form only, of
    the Software and to permit persons to whom the Software is provided to
    do the same, provided that the following conditions are met:

    No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this Software
    is permitted.

    Redistributions must reproduce the above copyright notice, this
    permission notice, and the following disclaimers and notices in the
    Software documentation and/or other materials provided with the
    Software.
    <snip extra-long version of the standard "Don't blame us!" disclaimer>
    So yes, you're free to distribute and use it. You have AMD's explicit permission.

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hfernando View Post
    :c It didn't work for me. I downloaded a patched sources from git://people.freedesktop.org/~deathsimple/linux , the uvd-3.9 branch and a the patches for mesa-9.2 from the mail list.
    I would report this but i don't know where. because of DRM think.
    Did you get the new firmware too?

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Toruń, Poland
    Posts
    160

    Default

    I have just read this passionate discussion about software, firmware and hardware, and concluded that an essential element is still missing in this SOFT <-> HARD war. A proper definition of what firmware truly is. For me, firmware is exactly the interface between the code and the machine. A layer translating software into hardware, and hardware into software. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't matter where it resides. It is NOT software AND it is NOT hardware. It is up to authorities like Richard Stallman to decide whether it should be "free" or not. However, it definitely is not software, so it should not be bound by same set of rules as software.

    In this scientific light I can see a way out of this conflict. If current "microcode blob" contains code that does not serve the soft <-> hard translation purpose then move it out. Do what you want with the rest of code. If a market segmentation is required, do it in hardware. If there are too many models of products to manage that - manufacture less models. I keep wondering, why corporations like AMD keep pushing out so many different products which differ only a bit. I believe THIS is a waste of R&D. Why not put out just 3 new models in each new line (best performance, cheapest, balanced) and update previous models to newest tech without changing basic parameters? How about this?

    In this discussion I am sure on two opinions:
    1. Post-production limitation of hardware is bad practice.
    2. Firmware is neither software nor hardware, it is a completely separate unit which ties software and hardware together.

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hirager View Post
    I keep wondering, why corporations like AMD keep pushing out so many different products which differ only a bit. I believe THIS is a waste of R&D.
    We usually only offer two variants -- consumer and workstation -- and those differ primarily in the binary drivers (although clock speeds, testing, components etc.. are usually also different).

    The rest of the variety comes from our board partners who buy chips from us and design/build their own boards starting with a reference design from AMD.

    The discussion about limiting functionality in microcode is hypothetical, offered as a possible reason for having more concerns about RAM-based microcode than equivalent ROM-based microcode. It doesn't really apply to open source drivers anyways since vendors can't "force" a microcode update on users, but it might help to explain some of the instinctive dislike.

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,634

    Default

    Well the drivers are not really much different. Usually you can fake workstation hardware with a simple fglrx kernel module hack as the check is in the open source part. It does not give you more game performance, just workstation benchmarks like specviewperf run faster.

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    991

    Thumbs up

    Excuse me, gentlemen, for slight hijacking into the topic. This is real-world use case.
    I am looking for a good used notebook, preferably IBM. So I found "as new" T60. It has Intel chip, so I hope for good stable open intel graphics.

    One of them is T60p - p="professional" meaning more advanced graphics. Then I see - "Ati FireGL5200". I decided to ignore it, because I know - its crap.
    But still, I googled a bit. Confirmation: "Welcome to a world of pain."

    "Performance" my ***...

    Another 200$ going into Intel for good opensource blob-free working driver.
    Have a nice conversation, excuse me for interruption.

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hirager View Post
    However, it [firmware] definitely is not software, so it should not be bound by same set of rules as software.
    Why? Care to explain?

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    Excuse me, gentlemen, for slight hijacking into the topic. This is real-world use case.
    I am looking for a good used notebook, preferably IBM. So I found "as new" T60. It has Intel chip, so I hope for good stable open intel graphics.

    One of them is T60p - p="professional" meaning more advanced graphics. Then I see - "Ati FireGL5200". I decided to ignore it, because I know - its crap.
    But still, I googled a bit. Confirmation: "Welcome to a world of pain."

    "Performance" my ***...

    Another 200$ going into Intel for good opensource blob-free working driver.
    Have a nice conversation, excuse me for interruption.
    To be fair, that post you found is from 2.5 years ago, and the OSS drivers have improved immensely in the time sense then.

    I would still probably recommend sticking with Intel in any laptop you buy, but I don't think you can really draw many, if any conclusions about the current driver based on what it was like 3 years ago.

Posting Permissions

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