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

101–110 of 185 posts

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

#101

Post by AstralStorm »

gizmo wrote: post #96
gond wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> DP is still missing HDMI features like ARC and CEC, which are important for TVs. ARC could also be considered as a bug, a hindrance, or both. ARC and its various implementations would not exist if the HDMI Forum would not be so fanatically force copy protection on everything. The whole problem, or feature that ARC is or is not, would disappear with the reliance of protecting every stream. The alternative would be a…

Don't you also need ARC because of video post-processing that adds frames of latency? The TV needs to send audio back to the receiver otherwise video and audio will not be in sync anymore. Receivers/amplifiers can process audio with practically no latency so it makes sense for them to be at the end of the chain.

Ugh, DisplayPort already has the audio channel. As far as sync, neither protocol provides for effective reclocking or supplies the audio clocks, and you need VRR to provide sort of display clocks.

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

#102

Post by ozfive »

rini17 wrote: post #81
account42 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually these monopolies are enforced by the state via IP laws. Without IP laws any upstart could reverse engineer the protocols and provide an implementation with less limitations. But of course free market enthusiasts like to ignore that part and only rant against the government when it protects consumers from companies.

Yes, if there were no IP anyone could cheaply make a single-digit-nanometer-node custom ASIC to provide the alternative 4K-capable video hardware implementation. /s

Single-digit-nanometer-node custom ASICs aren't really required to achieve this. Although there is higher latency this can and has been done on FPGAs at a company I worked for which designed and built custom AVOD systems for private jets and helicopters.

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

#103

Post by Y_Y »

AstralStorm wrote: post #99
Y_Y wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the standard answer to your point is that you can recognise "intellectual property" without granting a (limited) monopoly. There are plenty of proposals floating around for copyright and patent reform that curtail or replace the ability of the creator/owner to unilaterally set the price and decide who can license the material and how they can use it.

Thing is, HDMI forum is not a monopoly. It's a literal cartel of a few corporations and other cartels. Other cartels pushing for it include MPAA.

The monopoly here is HDMI LA, who provides the required licenses.

> HDMI® Licensing Administrator, Inc. (HDMI LA) is the agent appointed by the HDMI Forum to license Version 2.1b of the HDMI Specification and is the agent appointed by the HDMI Founders to license earlier HDMI Specifications.

https://hdmi.org/adopter/index

See also: https://www.symmetryelectronics.com/blog/what-are-the-licens...

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

#104

Post by matja »

Hendrikto wrote: post #85
matja wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Arguably true, but I think that is changing all the time while there is a push towards open-source drivers regardless of the average user knowing/caring what that is, along with resolutions and refresh rates increasing. I was affected by H…

> off-the-shelf 4K 120Hz monitor which refused to work at that resolution/refresh rate on an HDMI cable. I run a 4K 144Hz monitor over HDMI. Are you sure you don‘t just need a better cable?

My HDMI cables work at 4k 120Hz with the same monitor with an NVidia card using closed-source drivers, not with AMD open-source drivers, because of the issue in the article.

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

#105

Post by jakeogh »

account42 wrote: post #83
jakeogh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you in principal, but cleanroom reverse engineering is legal. The issue here is AMD signed the NDA's to read the secret spec and write the code, hence they cant release it. The solution is to not buy proprietary standards[0], in this case, I'm looking for DisplayPort when I buy... and a big + to AMD for trying. Hey Intel! Come back! [0] Pile of comments here pretending it's sooo difficult.

> in this case, I'm looking for DisplayPort when I buy That's an option if what you are looking for is a normal computer monitor. If you want a big TV then good luck finding one with DP, especially if you have other requirements (emissive pixels with real blacks, HDR, etc) that further limit your options.

Are you saying it's a lost cause? If so i'm totally switching back to Windows 2033 so I can play Simnpc in full res and buying one of those smart cars.

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

#106

Post by superhuzza »

arghwhat wrote: post #65
kelnos wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> At any rate, for some reason DisplayPort has just not caught on all that much. DisplayPort won everything, except not becoming the physical connector for home cinema. Heck, even within those HDMI-exposing devices, DP won. The vast majority of display drivers speak eDP. Few things actually implement HDMI, and instead rely on DisplayPort to HDMI converters - that's true whether you're looking at a Nintendo Switch or…

>home cinema is pretty much purely an enthusiast thing these days (the casual user won't plug anything into their smart TV)

Except a gaming console, a laptop, a roku, apple TV...

Every single person I know has some external media source plugged into their TV, even my tech illiterate mother.

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

#107

Post by amelius »

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.

> quality and consistency of HDMI experience

For me the experience is not so good, given that HDMI signals always require at least 2 very long seconds to be recognized by a monitor, often even more.

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

#108

Post by sylware »

Everybody knew that could happen with HDMI based on their legality setup.

And it did.

That said, those guys usually play a "back and forth" game on the long run... so stay tuned.

You should have an eye on MPEG too, because those are the same "type" of people (and ARM ISA is not far behind...)

Even if I despise big tech on nearly all fronts, sometimes we can agree, and this is AV1 and DisplayPort.

And this type of behaviour namely not having a DisplayPort port could be a perfect regulatory (anti-competitive) project for EU, like they did with apple...

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

#110

Post by atoav »

Rinzler89 wrote: post #63
atoav wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a media tech guy (running the media tech department of a university, which includes a DCI conform cinema): absolutely everybody hates HDMI. It is unreliable as hell, both physically and as a protocol. It tries to be too much to too many people and most devices, including expensive "pro" gear includes unchangeable random weirdness like ignoring EDIDs or forcing them onto you, that is documented nowhere and you can…

Isn't this why VGA is still widely used everywhere? It always just works no matter what even when connector or pins are damaged since there's no digital handshake or error correction just a basic analog pipeline.

I don't know, at least here (Europe) VGA has pretty much died out in all but legacy applications. The true pro format would be SDI using BNC connectors.

But I guess HDMI is going to be replaced by USB-C in the long run. Especially since the "everything-connector" also doing Video makes more sense than the video-connector also doing everything.

Post reply on HN