Am Freitag, den 05.10.2007, 14:15 +0200 schrieb Matthias Hopf: > On Oct 05, 07 00:22:09 +0200, Syren Baran wrote: > > I personaly dont know how the ATI architecture differs that a kernel > > module might be unnecesarry. Fglrx also uses a kernel module. > > It has a completely programmable command processor Neat. I thought that idea had died with TIGA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_Graphics_Architecture ) until i read about NVidia´s CUDA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA ). > (Tom's Hardware has a > pretty good overview in this case), A link would be nice. > and all memory accesses (from the > hardware side) seem to be virtual, so it might have a MMU. > As long as the command processor cannot be programmed from user space, > this scenario can be made secure for complete user space programming. > I have *no* idea ATM, whether this works with the current DRI > architecture or not, so this is probably something for later > improvements, but not for the beginning. A completely programmable GPU changes things a lot. ATI/AMD should really open their specs on this, this is not only interresting for a X-driver. Ever heard of coupling 4 SLI cards in a system without adding a output connector to any of them? ( http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/91374 , article in german) Still, the best bang for the buck if single precision computational power is sufficent.
> > I´ll invest a couple of hours now and then. Been a while since i last > > did low level gfx card stuff and 3D, but i hope i´ll be able to > > contribute a bit more than just some pci-ids. > > Cool :) > Thanks, but don't follow that road too far ATM. It'll be quite a while > until we will see 3D docs. At least that's my estimation. Now i got a different hunch. But writing a compiler is nothing i have knowledge of. > > CU > > Matthias > Greets, Syren _______________________________________________ xorg-driver-ati mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-driver-ati
