Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

lists.freedesktop.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 284 posts

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#81

Post by [deleted] »

dzhang50 wrote: post #76
lvs wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim that AMD, a company with gross profit in the $1 - 2 billion range, does not have the resources to support a dedicated development team that can do a good job on upstream-able code is just farcical. That's a question of corporate priorities, not resources, and gets precisely to the critique of corporate culture that was in question. > There's only so much time in the day; we'd like to make our code perfect,…

AMD doesn't have "gross profit in the $1 - 2 billion range". They have about $1B in revenue per quarter and have had negative profits (i.e. they lose money) for quite some time now. They were on the verge of bankrupcy about a year ago. Maybe Zen can turn their fortunes around, but they're correct in that they don't have the resources for a dedicated development team right now.

[deleted]

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#82

Post by AlisdairO »

lvs wrote: post #57
Spivak wrote: post #23

I really don't understand why AMD cares so much about getting their driver upstreamed. If their code doesn't meet the kernel standards and they don't want to fix it then just package it up as kernel module and ship it like Nvidia does. Distributions will package it using DKMS and other than some occasional troubleshooting they wont even notice. It's really no difference than Windows in that respect. His arguments see…

The claim that AMD, a company with gross profit in the $1 - 2 billion range, does not have the resources to support a dedicated development team that can do a good job on upstream-able code is just farcical. That's a question of corporate priorities, not resources, and gets precisely to the critique of corporate culture that was in question. > There's only so much time in the day; we'd like to make our code perfect,…

The use of gross profit here is severely misleading. AMD has famously been losing money for a long time - they made a loss of half a billion last year.

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#83

Post by [deleted] »

dzhang50 wrote: post #76
lvs wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim that AMD, a company with gross profit in the $1 - 2 billion range, does not have the resources to support a dedicated development team that can do a good job on upstream-able code is just farcical. That's a question of corporate priorities, not resources, and gets precisely to the critique of corporate culture that was in question. > There's only so much time in the day; we'd like to make our code perfect,…

AMD doesn't have "gross profit in the $1 - 2 billion range". They have about $1B in revenue per quarter and have had negative profits (i.e. they lose money) for quite some time now. They were on the verge of bankrupcy about a year ago. Maybe Zen can turn their fortunes around, but they're correct in that they don't have the resources for a dedicated development team right now.

[deleted]

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#84

Post by [deleted] »

lvs wrote: post #57
Spivak wrote: post #23

I really don't understand why AMD cares so much about getting their driver upstreamed. If their code doesn't meet the kernel standards and they don't want to fix it then just package it up as kernel module and ship it like Nvidia does. Distributions will package it using DKMS and other than some occasional troubleshooting they wont even notice. It's really no difference than Windows in that respect. His arguments see…

The claim that AMD, a company with gross profit in the $1 - 2 billion range, does not have the resources to support a dedicated development team that can do a good job on upstream-able code is just farcical. That's a question of corporate priorities, not resources, and gets precisely to the critique of corporate culture that was in question. > There's only so much time in the day; we'd like to make our code perfect,…

[deleted]

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#85

Post by Fr0styMatt88 »

lvs wrote: post #57
Spivak wrote: post #23

I really don't understand why AMD cares so much about getting their driver upstreamed. If their code doesn't meet the kernel standards and they don't want to fix it then just package it up as kernel module and ship it like Nvidia does. Distributions will package it using DKMS and other than some occasional troubleshooting they wont even notice. It's really no difference than Windows in that respect. His arguments see…

The claim that AMD, a company with gross profit in the $1 - 2 billion range, does not have the resources to support a dedicated development team that can do a good job on upstream-able code is just farcical. That's a question of corporate priorities, not resources, and gets precisely to the critique of corporate culture that was in question. > There's only so much time in the day; we'd like to make our code perfect,…

That may have been true of their driver quality in the past, but it's really not so true now. On Windows, their constant work at improving drivers, leading up to the release of their Crimson driver software, has been evident over the last two years. I have not had an AMD driver issue since maybe late last year (when there was a persistent incompatibility for a long time between Oculus Rift and the drivers). I run a dual-GPU card (R9-295X2) so my setup isn't exactly vanilla either (admittedly though I only use a single monitor, multi-monitor seems to have been a persistent pain point for people).

I can understand AMD wanting to unify their codebase. I agree with the parent that they shouldn't worry so much about upstreaming into the kernel. I think their HAL approach is the right engineering one, given the constraints that their team is working under. The team seems to be trying to do the best with what they've been given.

Also, hasn't the graphics division been spun-off into a separate company now (Radeon Graphics Group)? Or is it just a more focused internal division within AMD?

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#86

Post by AlisdairO »

kstrauser wrote: post #79
fbreduc wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They don't have the resources to do it right. Honestly I hear this quite often from big companies and it always is the biggest load of BS ever..

Correction: we have the resources. We just don't want to allocate them and would prefer that you did the work instead.

I would think that any company that's lost as much money for as long as AMD has has a right to say that they don't have the necessary resources.

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#87

Post by prodigal_erik »

izacus wrote: post #37
plorkyeran wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not "We can't accept this, let's talk about how to make us both happy". He gave them that answer 6 months ago, and they ignored it. This was not an abrupt rejection out of nowhere.

The "answer" 6 months ago was "Yeah, you'll have to write a full Linux driver yourself and maintain it." type deal. It was unreasonable then as it is now. If I tell you "You need to rewrite your product in Brainfuck or I'll kick you out in 6 months.", the fact that I told you that doesn't make it any less insane.

AMD is trying to merge a Windows driver with enough shims to make it sort of interact with Linux. That might as well be written in Brainfuck from the point of view of a Linux kernel hacker trying to figure out WTF it does.

To merge a driver into the kernel is to accept responsibility for maintaining it, which they recognize they are not prepared or even interested in doing.

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#88

Post by jfim »

Analemma_ wrote: post #15
aqtrans wrote: post #8

Did I miss the mud-slinging and corporate culture bashing from the original rejection? I can get the AMD dev being a bit sour by the whole situation if they personally spent time working on this rejected patch, but damn.

While I agree with Dave that the patch should not have been merged, I can understand the tone of the reply, not just from frustration but maybe even some actual panic about job security. Depending on how AMD's management takes this news, some of the people who wrote this patch may not have a job in a little while if the merge doesn't happen. I'm trying to be sympathetic.

Considering AMD is bleeding money, I assume it was pretty hard as well to get someone to sign off on getting headcount/resources to write Linux drivers.

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#89

Post by prodigal_erik »

wolfgke wrote: post #19
Analemma_ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was a big secret that this was how Linux worked and it took the companies by surprise, I could see how this could be a bad thing, but it never has been: Linus has always been very upfront that he is Benevolent Dictator for Life and always has the last word. Don't get onboard if you don't like that system.

Then all the Linux fans that complained to AMD that they don't deliver open source drivers should from now on better shitstorm the kernel maintainers, since AMD delivered.

AMD didn't deliver a Linux driver. They delivered a Windows driver plus a bunch of glue code that nobody really wants. In the best of all possible worlds, somebody would dissect the Windows driver for instruction and write a proper Linux driver and nobody would try to run the Windows driver as-is.

Re: AMD responds to Linux kernel maintainer's rejection of AMDGPU patch

#90

Post by indolering »

cypher543 wrote: post #67
smnc wrote: post #29

> Is all we care about android? I constantly hear the argument, if we don't do all of this android will do their own thing and then that will be the end. Right now we are all suffering and android barely even using this yet. If Linux will carry on without AMD contributing maybe Linux will carry on ok without bending over backwards for android. Could someone here fill in the details for the uninitiated? Do the kernel…

I don't know the details either, but honestly, I'm amazed that Google hasn't just thrown Linux out and built a microkernel with a Linux-compatible syscall API. That way there's a single binary that only cares about standard ARM things like memory management and scheduling and doesn't require hardware vendors to tweak it for every new SoC. The SoC-specific drivers can be written and updated separately just like apps.…

Linus made the right engineering choice when he took the monolithic route in the 90's. However, the technical advantages of that architecture are now moot. Sooner-or-later, Google is going to get tired of Linux's shortcomings and build a replacement OS.
Post reply on HN