Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, yes. The only relevant device with HDMI that I have is a raspberry pi.
You don't own any monitor or TV?
Every of them runs on DP
HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver
91–100 of 185 posts
Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Is HDMI over USB even a thing that any real devices support? But yeah, demand for mobile phone support might force TV manufacturers to adopt DP over USB.
> Is HDMI over USB even a thing that any real devices support?
No. A spec for HDMI Alternate Mode was written, but almost nobody (possibly nobody at all?) implemented it, and it was eventually withdrawn.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/01/hdmi-to-usb-c-spec-a...
Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget about usb-c. Video over usb-c is almost always display port in disguise.
What about latency? Is it on par or at least in the same league compared to direct connection? Not an issue for most people, but gamers could disagree if it is too high.
Performance is identical. DisplayPort Alternate Mode (which is what most displays use) isn't transmitting video data over USB; it's agreeing to use some of the high-speed wire pairs in the cable to transmit DisplayPort data instead of USB.
Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver
#94What exactly does this mean? Isn't it just a case that the driver wouldn't be HDMI-certified, or are they actively prevented from distributing the driver?
[deleted]
Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver
#95>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…
> 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.
I suspect all the nice features that make DisplayPort a better standard are harder to implement cheaply, eg chaining
Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's quite that simple. DP is still missing HDMI features like ARC and CEC, which are important for TVs. Even on my personal computer setup, I use the HDMI 2.1 ports on my monitor/GPU over the DP 1.4 ports because the DP port just doesn't have the bandwidth for 2560x1440 @ 240hz with 10-bit colour. That requires ~30 Gbit/s, more than DP1.4's ~26 Gbit/s. Neither my monitor nor my GPU support DP2.0 which…
> 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.
Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver
#97What exactly does this mean? Isn't it just a case that the driver wouldn't be HDMI-certified, or are they actively prevented from distributing the driver?
My reading: AMD signed a contract with the HDMI Forum in order to get access to the HDMI specification and be allowed to create HDMI products (and use the HDMI trademark), which includes an NDA regarding the specification. An open-source driver would violate that NDA.
Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's quite that simple. DP is still missing HDMI features like ARC and CEC, which are important for TVs. Even on my personal computer setup, I use the HDMI 2.1 ports on my monitor/GPU over the DP 1.4 ports because the DP port just doesn't have the bandwidth for 2560x1440 @ 240hz with 10-bit colour. That requires ~30 Gbit/s, more than DP1.4's ~26 Gbit/s. Neither my monitor nor my GPU support DP2.0 which…
ARC and CEC are only necessary because of this stupid situation where TVs are like displays with shitty media centres built in. ARC is only a tiny bit more convenient anyway; it's not that hard to run an audio cable back from the TV to an audio receiver and you'll be hiding the cable anyway so it matters not the slightest what it looks like. In 2002 there was XBMC (later renamed to Kodi). Microsoft even had Windows X…
It's still a perfectly valid choice.
Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irreducible state role in a free market is to enforce property rights. Almost all free market fans I have seen think that this should extend to some notion of intellectual property.
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.
Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver
#100>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. And that would be bad how? DP is an excellent standard and royalty free.
Not bad, but it's hard to think of a reason why they're doing this
It's protecting your standard from being used by others when wide adoption is the only thing that differentiates your standard from others
i.e. they're shooting themselves in the foot