suggested xorg-compatible video HW for FreeBSD/amd64 ?
jkim at FreeBSD.org
Tue Nov 29 19:47:50 UTC 2011
On Tuesday 29 November 2011 01:38 pm, Kostik Belousov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:04:14PM -0500, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > On Tuesday 29 November 2011 04:00 am, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:46:23 -0700 (MST)
> > >
> > > Warren Block <wblock at wonkity.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 28 Nov 2011, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > > > > Just a quick reminder as it seems to be forgotten too
> > > > > often...radeonhd has not been supported or updated in a
> > > > > long time and is generally a bad choice. Modern Radeon
> > > > > (4xxx) is supported much better with the ati driver which
> > > > > is still getting some love.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since Radeon is open-source, you might expect good support,
> > > > > but it also depends on kernel mode setting and requires
> > > > > custom KMS DRI code in the kernel which I am not sure
> > > > > anyone is working on for FreeBSD.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe when the Intel KMS is completed...
> > > >
> > > > The Foundation has expressed interest in funding someone to
> > > > work on it. http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=27255
> > > >
> > > > Spread the word.
> > > >
> > > > Kostik Belousov has said he won't be workin on the radeon
> > > > driver. Don't know why. If anyone can be found to work on
> > > > it, I'm pretty sure a bunch of people would be willing to
> > > > individually contribute additional funding or hardware.
> > >
> > > I don't think he wants to take on TTM. Could also be that he
> > > doesn't have any hardware, which would IMO be a major problem
> > > for whomever takes this on considering the rate at which
> > > AMD/ATI brings new chips to market. High-end cards, which are
> > > usually the first to market, can be quite expensive.
> > I believe major hurdle is porting TTM but the future of this API
> > is not so bright. In fact, X.org ATI driver uses GEM API now and
> > it is internally mapped to TTM calls by Linux DRM (aka "GEM-ified
> > TTM manager"). Unfortunately, as always, I don't see clear plans
> > from Linux/X.org developers. I can only guess few possibilities.
> > 1. Linux/X.org folks drop GEM-ified TTM and use native GEM calls.
> > 2. Linux/X.org folks drop GEM-ified TTM and use native TTM calls.
> > 3. Linux/X.org folks re-invent new wheels (again).
> > 4. No change.
> > My guess is #1 is most likely scenario in the near future. Even
> > if Linux/X.org folks don't do it, we may be able to implement it
> > without TTM because X.org ATI driver uses GEM API already and we
> > do not have AMD/ATI Catalyst driver for FreeBSD anyway. So, I
> > guess we have two choices ATM:
> > 1. Fully porting TTM, GEM-ified TTM, and KMS.
> > 2. Replacing GEM-ified TTM with GEM and porting KMS.
> > BTW, I am not volunteering. ;-)
> GEM is sort of API, which provides the interface between user and
> kernel callers and the real code managing the GPU. TTM is memory
> manager, which was designed for GPUs that have on-board memory and
> also can access host memory. Besides memory manager, you also need
> a thick layer of card-specific code. This is only for the execution
If my understanding is correct, "GEM-ified TTM manager" is
card-specific code, isn't it? So, we may be able to replace
GEM-ified TTM with Radeon-specific code *without* TTM backend. Am I
> I already stated several times that I will port TTM if somebody
> takes care of the card specific execution code and KMS. I found
> that KMS is not very interesting for me.
Or someone write card-specific execution code without TTM backend?
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that is easier. It was just a
> Another problem with already ported Intel driver and possibly
> ported Radeon driver is the need for shared pool of people
> interested in taking the updates from Linux and merging it back to
> FreeBSD. This is definitely not hard to do, e.g the merge of
> changes from the 3.2 merge window took ~5 hours of my time. but I
> do not want to do this forever.
In fact, I did just that for couple of years and I understand what
you're saying. It wasn't trivial even though Linux and FreeBSD
shared the same DRM sources at the time and we had anholt@ in our
More information about the freebsd-x11