←back to thread

123 points haunter | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.316s | source
Show context
shmerl ◴[] No.45271178[source]
What will AMD do with Windows Vulkan driver, didn't they use amdvlk there? There was some radv on Windows experiment, it would be cool if AMD would use that.
replies(1): >>45271289 #
trynumber9 ◴[] No.45271289[source]
No, it was a third driver.

Per AMD

>Notably, AMD's closed-source Vulkan driver currently uses a different pipeline compiler, which is the major difference between AMD's open-source and closed-source Vulkan drivers.

replies(2): >>45271475 #>>45272999 #
shmerl ◴[] No.45271475[source]
Why are they using different compilers?
replies(2): >>45272837 #>>45273335 #
account42 ◴[] No.45273335[source]
Either licensing issues (maybe they don't own all parts of the closed source shader compiler) or fears that Nvidia/Intel could find out things about the hardware that AMD wants to keep secret (the fears being Unfounded doesn't make the possibility of them being a reason any less likely). Or alternatively they considered it not worth releasing it (legal review isn't free) because the LLVM back-end was supposed to replace it anyway.
replies(1): >>45273791 #
AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.45273791[source]
> or fears that Nvidia/Intel could find out things about the hardware that AMD wants to keep secret (the fears being Unfounded doesn't make the possibility of them being a reason any less likely)

When the fears are unfounded the reason isn't "Nvidia/Intel could find out things about the hardware", it's "incompetence rooted in believing something that isn't true". Which is an entirely different thing because in one case they would have a proper dilemma and in the other they would need only extricate their cranium from their rectum.

replies(1): >>45274020 #
1. mschuster91 ◴[] No.45274020[source]
> When the fears are unfounded the reason isn't "Nvidia/Intel could find out things about the hardware"

Good luck trying to explain that to Legal. The problem at the core with everything FOSS is the patent and patent licensing minefield. Hardware patents are already risky enough to get torched by some "submarine patent" troll, the US adds software patents to that mix. And even if you think you got all the licenses you need, it might be the case that the licensing terms ban you from developing FOSS drivers/software implementing the patent, or that you got a situation like the HDMI2/HDCP situation where the DRM <insert derogatory term here> insist on keeping their shit secret, or you got regulatory requirements on RF emissions.

And unless you got backing from someone very high up the chain, Corporate Legal will default to denying your request for FOSS work if there is even a slight chance it might pose a legal risk for the company.