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

Post by prodigal_erik » Sat, Dec 10, 2016, 3:41 AM UTC

indolering wrote: post #90

cypher543 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 by drite » Sat, Dec 10, 2016, 3:46 AM UTC

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,…

Post by motoboi » Sat, Dec 10, 2016, 3:50 AM UTC

akkartik wrote: post #36

On a tangent: what the fuck is up with the giant quotes at the top of these messages? They're technically fulfilling the letter of netiquette by not top-posting, but they serve absolutely no purpose. If you aren't going to take the trouble to pull out short quotes to respond to, please just delete the message altogether. All our clients have excellent support for threading these days, and we can find the message you'…

Post by calinet6 » Sat, Dec 10, 2016, 3:52 AM UTC

snarfy wrote: post #73

izacus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then again, we're not talking about some wierd network card driver here. We're talking about having a constant up-to-date driver on par with Windows for a major GPU card manufacturer. A driver which has caused a large amount of desktop users to return to Windows due to its historical issues. While I get the reasoning for rejection, the typical OSS rejection attitude is also problematic. I kinda don't see a dialog hap…

> A driver which has caused a large amount of desktop users to return to Windows due to its historical issues. Kernel developers do not care. They care about good software.

Post by wfunction » Sat, Dec 10, 2016, 4:16 AM UTC

drite wrote: post #93

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,…

You've confused revenue with profit. They are not the same thing. AMD has been losing money for most of its existence and almost went bankrupt on a number of occasions. This renders your points completely invalid.