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

HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 185 posts

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#11

Post by kelnos »

broodbucket wrote: post #4

>On the one hand, this move ensures the quality and consistency of HDMI experience. Does it though? Does it really? I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort.

> Does it though? Does it really?

Of course not. It's just protectionism and rent-seeking.

> I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort.

I don't think so, at least at this point. Most people don't have hardware that requires HDMI 2.1 in order to get full use out of them, and of those who do, not all of them use Linux and/or care about open source drivers.

Sure, that situation may change, and the HDMI Forum may walk back these requirements.

At any rate, for some reason DisplayPort has just not caught on all that much. You very rarely see them on TVs, and a good number of mid-/lower-end monitors don't have them either.

It's bizarre, really.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#12

Post by kelnos »

Sakos wrote: post #2

Feels like it's time for governments to get involved. It's not reasonable for a ubiquitous format like HDMI to be restricted like this.

I agree. It should be illegal to restrict people from making open source implementations of industry standards like this.

I don't expect that to ever happen, of course. But I can dream...

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#13

Post by anordal »

wmf wrote: post #7
Sakos wrote: post #2

Feels like it's time for governments to get involved. It's not reasonable for a ubiquitous format like HDMI to be restricted like this.

Between patents, trade secrets, and DMCA, the government is the source of the problem here. Arguably the FTC could step in here but I think they have bigger problems to tackle.

But not all governments, thankfully. Remember DVD-Jon? He won the trial for breaking DVD crypto, because consumer rights stood above trade secrets.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#14

Post by shmerl »

kelnos wrote: post #11
broodbucket wrote: post #4

>On the one hand, this move ensures the quality and consistency of HDMI experience. Does it though? Does it really? I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort.

> Does it though? Does it really? Of course not. It's just protectionism and rent-seeking. > I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort. I don't think so, at least at this point. Most people don't have hardware that requires HDMI 2.1 in order to get full use out of them, and of those who do, not all of them use Linux and/or care about open source drivers. Sure, that situation m…

May be it can change if USB 4 will sneak in and supplant HDMI in those devices, since it can route both HDMI and DP.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#15

Post by adrian_b »

shiroiushi wrote: post #10
broodbucket wrote: post #4

>On the one hand, this move ensures the quality and consistency of HDMI experience. Does it though? Does it really? I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort.

>They're handing a win to DisplayPort. Is this useful, if all the relevant devices only have HDMI ports and not DP?

What I find very annoying is that a very large number of small computers and laptops have both DisplayPort and HDMI, but they have full-size HDMI connectors and only USB Type C DisplayPort.

Using Type C for DisplayPort instead of the good full-size DisplayPort connectors is less reliable (easy to disconnect accidentally) and it permits only shorter video cables.

More importantly, this blocks the Type C connector, which I need for other purposes, e.g. an external SSD. I do not want to carry a Type C dock, so I end using HDMI, even if I do not need HDMI and I do not want HDMI and even if in almost all cases the devices had enough free space for a full-size DisplayPort connector.

Even replacing the HDMI connector with a DisplayPort connector (so that the devices would have only full-size and Type C DisplayPort) is always a better solution, because there are a lot of cheap adapters from DisplayPort to HDMI, which do not need a separate power supply and they can even be incorporated inside the video cable. The reverse adapters, from HDMI to DisplayPort, are much more expensive and much bulkier, so usually they are not acceptable.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#16

Post by agilob »

shiroiushi wrote: post #10
broodbucket wrote: post #4

>On the one hand, this move ensures the quality and consistency of HDMI experience. Does it though? Does it really? I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort.

>They're handing a win to DisplayPort. Is this useful, if all the relevant devices only have HDMI ports and not DP?

Well, yes. The only relevant device with HDMI that I have is a raspberry pi.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#17

Post by shiroiushi »

adrian_b wrote: post #15
shiroiushi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They're handing a win to DisplayPort. Is this useful, if all the relevant devices only have HDMI ports and not DP?

What I find very annoying is that a very large number of small computers and laptops have both DisplayPort and HDMI, but they have full-size HDMI connectors and only USB Type C DisplayPort. Using Type C for DisplayPort instead of the good full-size DisplayPort connectors is less reliable (easy to disconnect accidentally) and it permits only shorter video cables. More importantly, this blocks the Type C connector, whi…

It seems the issue with this open-source driver is supporting some of the highest-performance modes of HDMI (like 4K @ 120Hz). Would that even work in a DisplayPort-to-HDMI adapter?

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#19

Post by Rinzler89 »

kelnos wrote: post #11
broodbucket wrote: post #4

>On the one hand, this move ensures the quality and consistency of HDMI experience. Does it though? Does it really? I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort.

> Does it though? Does it really? Of course not. It's just protectionism and rent-seeking. > I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort. I don't think so, at least at this point. Most people don't have hardware that requires HDMI 2.1 in order to get full use out of them, and of those who do, not all of them use Linux and/or care about open source drivers. Sure, that situation m…

>Of course not. It's just protectionism and rent-seeking.

Don't know why you're being downvoted but it's true. Especially when you see that the HDMI standard was developed by the cartel of TV manufacturers and major movie studios[1] when DVI and Display Port already existed but those didn't generate royalties or have DRM.

Despicable standard. There wasn't even a standards "war" like in VHS vs Betamax, or SD vs MemoryStick, or USB vs Fire Wire, to say that HDMI won over DisplayPort, it was simply shoved down consumers' throats since every TV, media player and games console only shipped with that port alone as they were manufactured by the same cartel that developed the HDMI standard.

So much for the so called "free market".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#History

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#20

Post by shiroiushi »

preisschild wrote: post #18
shiroiushi wrote: post #9

AMD should just leak the code and disclaim responsibility.

Even if they were to do that, it wouldn't really be a long term fix. Who would maintain this "unofficial" GPU driver? AMD themselves can't.

If it has that much interest, someone will put it on GitHub and maintain it. Of course, it'd be unofficial, but so was support for MP3s in Linux distros for many years: you had to download software from outside the US to make it work.
Post reply on HN