Slashdot Mirror
Open-Source 2D, 3D Drivers For ATI Radeon HD 5000 Series
An anonymous reader writes "AMD has now rolled out open-source 2D and 3D drivers for their ATI Radeon HD 5000 series graphics processors. As described at length over at Phoronix, it's taken nearly a year to complete but there is now public code released that enables 2D, 3D, and video hardware-acceleration for this latest generation of ATI GPUs. For now this code is intended for developers and enthusiasts but with time it will make its way into stable Linux distribution updates. AMD's open-source developers are also beginning to work on ATI Radeon HD 6000 series support, which is hardware not to be released until late in the year."
I would have had the first post, but I was waiting for my browser window to scroll.
Be relentless!
After years of being a die-hard Nvidia-on-Linux user, I took a risk and went with a laptop that had integrated ATI graphics when I made my most recent upgrade.
Nothing but instability, incompatibility, artifacting, underperformance, a mess. I regret it. I finally got an IBM Advanced Mini-Dock and put an Nvidia PCI-Express 8600GT in it (needed something low power enough to draw from the slot alone, small enough to fit in the tiny mini-dock space).
Installed the Nvidia drivers and away I went, stable and fast.
Meanwhile, on Windows nobody (neither IBM nor Lenovo nor ATI) have managed to release updated, much less Windows 7-compatible, drivers for the integrated ATI graphics in my Thinkpad. The machine is only two years old but it's all EOL as far as ATI is concerned.
This is a good move by ATI, I suppose, but it's woefully late, and it doesn't do anything about existing hardware on any platform. ATI's hardware might be okay, I have no idea, but their driver support on every platform sucks ass.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
These days, I pretty much only buy motherboards with intel graphics, simply because I don't want to have to deal with the hassle of installing NVidia's closed drivers, and for the life of me I can't figure out what I am supposed to do with an ATI card. There seems to be half a dozen open source driver projects always on the go, with no clear indication of what cards work and what cards don't. Add to that the constant complaints I see over their own closed source drivers, and that's another brand I simply won't consider. Someone tell me I'm wrong and point me to something that can clarify the situation.
Go out and buy some. And then help to make the driver rock-solid, if you're capable.
We've got to reward the companies that do this.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
You're reading far too much into Bruce's statement.
If buying ATI cards because of their improved performance encourages ATI to make a greater investment in open source drivers, which in turn further improves features and performance, how is this is any way NOT pragmatic?
There may be such a thing as open source zealotry, but, when they choose it, the vast majority of people choose FOSS because it's better than the alternatives.
Lastly, accusing Bruce Perens, of all people, of zealotry is not a great way to impress us with your perspicacity.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
I don't have an HDMI audio sink (feel free to send me one, BTW!) but HDMI audio should work on just about every Radeon that has it. The driver exposes the I2C controls for the audio to the rest of the kernel, and then the pre-existing ALSA code handles the rest.
~ C.
Radeon firmware is used to program a few special-purpose chips on the board. Up until the HD series, firmware was only needed to start up the DMA engine and get acceleration going; modern cards need a second piece of firmware to enable interrupts, for e.g. low-latency audio and vsync.
If anybody ever wanted to go out and reverse-engineer these blobs, they could, but it's really not worth the trouble since the level of functionality is so small and AMD already gives us bugfixes for the ucode when needed. That time might be better spent figuring out the patented parts of the chipset (video decoding, texture compression) which AMD isn't allowed to document for us.
~ C.
There are many issues in the world that can best be solved by people being nothing like you.
Simply put: If the consumer doesn't reward good deeds, business (with it's legal obligation to maximize profit) won't do as many good deeds.
In this case, your pragmatism, along with that of millions of others, is partly to blame for closed source drivers are so common. You yourself probably have lower quality graphics or operating system functionality due to this.
While it's fine to be pragmatic in many circumstances, your stance that buying on principle isn't morally above buying through total pragmatism is, IMO, ultimately harmful.
Blood diamonds are an extreme example of what comes from mass pragmatism. Would you knowingly buy one it it was better value?
You agree with me.
Bruce said "we've got to reward the companies that do this" not "we've got to punish the companies that don't." The former is pragmatism -- seeking to achieve and support a positive result (vendor provided open source video drivers) through reasonable means. The latter is zealotry -- seeking to punish a group through not following the "one true way".
Working vendor supported FOSS drivers are useful as the abilities to repair, improve, share and modify the drivers are all of considerable utility to the graphics card using community (even if not to one particular person in it). I do agree that the drivers should be at least servicable before anyone should buy a product. But servicable is all they need to be to be useful now.
--sabre86
Thanks for the kind words. What I find in general is that those who feel this is simply a matter of doctrinal rigidity are only interested in solving today's problem, without much vision toward what their lot might be tomorrow. Working to improve your own future is hardly zealotry.
Obviously it makes sense to decrease the degree to which we must be supplicants of a hardware vendor. That's even more true when the hardware vendor is in an essentially unchallenged duopoly. A vendor is working in our interest when they help us to free ourselves from the need to go to them to fix bugs, add functionality, and support our devices through software and hardware changes. When a vendor doesn't do this, we live constantly under the threat of withdrawl of support.
Rewarding vendors who do less will make it more certain that we'll get less in the future.
This all sounds eminently pragmatic to me.
Bruce Perens.
You'll find out how "imaginary" it is when your refusal to financially support the people doing the work causes them to stop doing it.
See, that's the huge fallacy with the argument that intellectual property has no owner, and therefore no financial value to any entity as it should be distributed without recompense: People generally do work because they are motivated. Things like houses, sending the kids to college, paying the water bill, buying the occasional gratuitous item -- if you take months of work and don't return something (and I'm not talking about a pat on the back), eventually, people will begin to ask themselves, "So... why did I do this again? I could have been working at McDonald's and paying off my house."
I will grant you it is easy to take work without recompense - particularly software, ideas, and performance recordings - especially since digital transfer has become so easy of itself; but I put it to you that your mindset is going to either kill the golden goose, or mutate it into something you're *really* not going to like. I don't think there's even a ghost of a chance you're going to see a transition into a Soviet-style "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"; and that's the *only* type of society where your idea of "imaginary property" translates into something sensible: property that isn't so much imaginary, but owned equally by all.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Sure, but the glacial pace at which Gallium3D and its drivers advance is a testimony to how hard it must be to write a graphics driver. If it was a job for your average programmer, the guys working on this stuff would have given us functional drivers two years ago. At this pace you'll be able to enjoy stable and fast R700 hardware support another 3 years from now.
In the future, when those drivers are done, they will surely be benefits to them being open source. But the only actual benefit now would be if some ingenious hacker got involved, committed and wrote the drivers in a couple months. Currently the development model isn't working very efficiently, because R600 docs were released over 2 years ago and we're only beginning to see functional drivers.
Open source works better when the barrier to involvement is lower, OpenGL infrastructure is more complex than most kernel drivers. It requires:
* knowing the OpenGL API intimately
* a firm grasp of 3D math and rasterization process
* an idea how to manage non-uniform memory and do low level hardware access in a thread-safe way
* a fair bit of compiler design for compiling shaders to GPU instructions
* all of the above done in C, because we still haven't developed a better language for low level work (see this paper for things a driver design language could have)
Says someone who's never had to try and update the latest version that supported his card by hand to make it compatible with the latest kernel. Linux doesn't have a stable driver/module interface, and that makes closed-source drivers an absolute pain.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The binary driver they produce which you cannot fix if it breaks, and neither can your distro maintainers... you are at the absolute mercy of nvidia for bugfixes...
The binary driver that only supports x86/amd64 (so no putting your card in a small arm based media player for instance)
The binary driver that only works with certain versions of X (ie you can't upgrade until nvidia let you)
The binary driver that only works with certain kernel versions (ie you can't upgrade until nvidia let you)
The binary driver that will sooner or later drop support for your card, leaving you tied to an old X and kernel version.
I'd rather not have a binary driver... You are far too dependent on a single entity, who would rather sell you a new card even if the old one is still perfectly adequate for your needs.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!