Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Displays AMD Hardware

AMD Releases Register Specs For R5xx And R6xx 121

ianare writes "AMD has recently released register specifications for the ATI Radeon R5xx and R6xx graphic devices. This will (theoretically) allow the OSS community to develop drivers, given time. In fact, engineers from Novell have released a first alpha quality Open Source driver which currently supports initial mode settings. Although current work is focused on 2D, rather than 3D acceleration, this type of information sharing could conceivably lead to an OSS 3D driver."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Releases Register Specs For R5xx And R6xx

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Hurrah (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TeknoHog ( 164938 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @04:45AM (#20726077) Homepage Journal
    Games, schmames. If we have complete specs of the hardware, there are plenty of things [gpgpu.org] besides graphics we can do with it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2007 @04:47AM (#20726085)
    The release of the alpha-quality, open-source driver was announced on Tues 18th Sept.

    Yep, it's a Zonk story ....
  • About time! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @04:59AM (#20726155)
    Given the quality of their *nix drivers...

    But I think ATI made a smart move. Outsourcing driver development to the OSS community certainly cuts costs.
  • Re:drivers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ettlz ( 639203 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @05:14AM (#20726207) Journal
    No, let's hope not. Just release the specs for the benefit of the entire free software community, and let people who know what they're doing write the drivers.
  • by Tom Womack ( 8005 ) <tom@womack.net> on Monday September 24, 2007 @05:14AM (#20726209) Homepage
    That the words 'texture', 'instruction pointer' or 'blitter' appear nowhere in either PDF file is a bit of a giveaway.

    Whilst the registers are essential for getting any kind of driver to work, the documents don't describe the exciting features of the graphics processor. They give you enough control over the memory-controller timings to convert any Radeon card into a smoking brick with a small kernel-mode driver, but they don't give instructions which actually make the graphics silicon do things. There's no indication of what the machine-code for the vector processors looks like.

    If you compare this to the documentation that Intel has for its (obsolete) 845 graphics controller, you notice that the whole block of registers for controlling even something as basic as the blitter, let alone the 'set instruction pointer for processing unit N' registers which actually let you set the high-performance processing units in the card to work, are missing.

    These documents let you use an R500 or R600 card as a frame buffer. Not worth making a song and dance about that one.

    Myself, I'd be fascinated to see documentation for the Intel G965 like the documentation for the G845; it clearly exists, there's a paper in the most recent Intel Technical Journal about low-level programming on the 965, it's just not available to mortals unless by attempting to reverse-engineer the x.org 965 driver.
  • Re:Bad move? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ettlz ( 639203 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @05:16AM (#20726223) Journal

    Doesn't this just encourgage the hardware developers to leave it to "the community"?
    This is precisely what we want. Leave driver development to those who know best how the operating system works.
  • Re:Bad move? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ihlosi ( 895663 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @05:17AM (#20726225)
    Doesn't this just encourgage the hardware developers to leave it to "the community"?



    Professional customers might still want a HW-developer-written driver.


    Regardless of that, it's a better move than keeping the specs secret. Because in the latter case, you're totally at the mercy of the HW developer as far as driver availability and quality goes.

  • Re:drivers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ameoba ( 173803 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @05:30AM (#20726273)
    It's entirely possible that they don't -have- specs written in a way that's suitable for public consumption.
  • Re:Bad move? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cheater512 ( 783349 ) <nick@nickstallman.net> on Monday September 24, 2007 @06:20AM (#20726483) Homepage
    Which is why releasing the specs is a great thing.

    Hardware makers do their thing and then they should pass the necessary info to the community so we can write the drivers.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2007 @06:41AM (#20726591)
    What is stopping AMD from making their own driver for linux?

    Why does it have to boil down to some volunteers to create a driver for a multi-billion dollar company for free, instead of said company creating and releasing their own drivers?

    I'm not trolling, I'm being serious.

    I don't get why the OSS community is rolling over and making these drivers. While I am aware this will make ATI drivers a lot more stable, I don't see why nVidia can create their own drivers but AMD/ATI can't.

    What is to stop other companies from just not bothering to create linux drivers and instead release the specs and let the community do the work, saving them money and making sure that any support issues are "not their responsibility"?

    Just keep buying nVidia cards to be honest. At least they actually bother to create drivers, instead of outsourcing them and then be able to deny any responsibility or support.
  • Re:drivers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by evanbd ( 210358 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @06:45AM (#20726623)
    Very true. There are lots of projects out there where the best (or only) way to find out is to wander down the hall and ask someone.
  • by babbling ( 952366 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @07:01AM (#20726705)
    Cheaper for the companies. Better for the community.

    The only losers are the companies (eg. nvidia) that compete with companies clever enough to do this, and companies (eg. microsoft) who have a vested interest in there not being any Free Software drivers.
  • You say that... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Spasmodeus ( 940657 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @07:06AM (#20726727)
    ...as if there are legions of qualified 3D device driver writers just waiting around with nothing better to do.

    Writing drivers for 3D cards is difficult work. "Release the specs and we'll write the drivers" has been the mantra of the open source community for years, but I think we're all in for a disappointment if we're expecting feature-complete, high-performance open-source drivers for these cards any time soon.

    I think some kind of sponsorship to dedicated, full-time devolopers is going to be necessary if we want to see drivers that can compete with even ATI's crappy binary drivers. Otherwise I'll bet the hardware will be long obsolete before the drivers are complete.
  • Re:Bad move? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 644bd346996 ( 1012333 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @08:14AM (#20727189)
    In the long run, I think you'll find that the kind of customer who won't trust a community-written open source driver to be very high quality won't be using Linux (or BSD or any other Unix) at all.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 24, 2007 @12:41PM (#20730531)
    > What is stopping AMD from making their own driver for linux?

    Money? Talent? Time?

    > I don't get why the OSS community is rolling over and making these drivers.

    We've only been begging for specs like these since forever, and we want lots more. Did you miss the whole story about the kernel team offering free drivers given sufficient specifications? If they make the driver, it'll almost have to be closed source, and then it won't be maintainable, so future kernels won't be able to use the hardware, etc.

    This isn't a "concession" on the OSS side, it's a dream come true.
  • Re:Bad move? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 644bd346996 ( 1012333 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @12:54PM (#20730753)
    So, you think the "give us the specs and we'll do the rest" bit is a fantasy? Has it occured to you that all those reverse-engineered drivers would have been done 100 times faster with specs, resulting in working drivers while the products were still fairly new?

    Look at the resources the r300 and nouveau projects have. If the manufacturers simply dumped the specs on them, they would be able to produce high quality drivers quickly. Even without the specs, they've proven their abilities to make decent drivers the hard way. Or do you have some reason to believe that they wouldn't be significantly more productive with specs? Is there something magic about ATI's programmers that makes them vastly more productive with the same specs to work from?
  • Re:Hurrah (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TeknoHog ( 164938 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @01:01PM (#20730905) Homepage Journal

    Opening the source hasn't got much to do with gaming success. The so-called succesful platforms, Windows and all the game consoles, are closed. Linux gaming could be pretty good right now, with NVidia's drivers for example. Opening the source will hardly make things less geeky, more attractive, or easier for the masses.

    Quite another thing is your definition of success. For me, Linux has been a major success since 1999, and I hope I'd have discovered it even earlier. I'm not very interested in games, so it's not a factor of success IMHO. It's the same issue with 'being ready for the desktop', it depends on what you do, so you should never generalize (except in this sentence ;)

  • Re:R250 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @04:28PM (#20734183) Homepage Journal
    Actually your statement proves my point. You will fall in love with ATI if they get out FOSS drivers for the new GPUs.
    Even then you top video card is only a 6600GT. Not even a 7 series. You are not a high profit demographic but even then they will win you over if they get a good FOSS driver out for the current cards.
  • by r_jensen11 ( 598210 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @08:26PM (#20736971)
    I'd rather there be one set of really stable drivers than two separate sets. With having only one set, we don't have to worry about some advanced programs only running with one driver set while another advanced program we need to use at the same time requires the other driver.

"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs

Working...