From: Ryan M. S. <ca...@um...> - 2001-08-19 20:12:38
|
hi. i'm interested in pursuing the mach64 work. i've just started reading up on the DRI achitecture.. can some one help me get started on this stuff? (i won't be able to do cvs for a couple weeks, at least.) thanks, ryan. |
From: Carl B. <afn...@af...> - 2001-08-20 01:00:06
|
Hey, Always nice to see someone joining in. I have been doing very little in the development of the mach64 card, and really the work is held up, because ATI will not release their Rage Pro/Mach64 documentation to anyone here. In fact, Manuel Teriea (he's working on guessing the memory addresses and other stuff from Gareth hughes unusable old branch) and I have both applied for Developer Membership, and still no reply, it's been a few months. I don't know if ATI will listen better if we have more people asking for the docs, but that's where I'd start, then get ahold of Manuel. Carl Busjahn Ryan Matthew Smith wrote: >hi. > >i'm interested in pursuing the mach64 work. >i've just started reading up on the DRI achitecture.. can some one help me >get started on this stuff? > >(i won't be able to do cvs for a couple weeks, at least.) > >thanks, >ryan. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Dri-devel mailing list >Dri...@li... >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel > |
From: Damian G. <dam...@ho...> - 2001-08-20 01:10:38
|
The Venerable Carl Busjahn on Sun, Aug 19, 2001: > Hey, > Always nice to see someone joining in. I have been doing very little > in > the development of the mach64 card, and really the work is held > up, because ATI will not release their Rage Pro/Mach64 documentation > to anyone here. In fact, Manuel Teriea (he's working on guessing the > memory addresses and other stuff from Gareth hughes unusable old > branch) and I have both applied for Developer Membership, and still > no reply, it's been a few months. > > I don't know if ATI will listen better if we have more people asking > for the docs, but that's where I'd start, then get ahold of Manuel. I've been intending to join in on the Mach64 development as well, but I need to brush up on my C first (and read all the docs). Where would we go to request specs/apply for Developer Membership? |
From: Carl B. <afn...@af...> - 2001-08-20 01:59:28
|
Hey, Here's the link on ATI, it's a form, and they'll send you a auto response... http://apps.ati.com/developers/devform1.asp I haven't been doing any of the coding with Manuel yet, I tried a little bit on merging the mesa-3-5 with mach64-0-0-1 branches, but didn't have any luck, guess I'll try again. Carl Busjahn Damian Gerow wrote: >The Venerable Carl Busjahn on Sun, Aug 19, 2001: > >>Hey, >>Always nice to see someone joining in. I have been doing very little >>in > the development of the mach64 card, and really the work is held >>up, because ATI will not release their Rage Pro/Mach64 documentation >>to anyone here. In fact, Manuel Teriea (he's working on guessing the >>memory addresses and other stuff from Gareth hughes unusable old >>branch) and I have both applied for Developer Membership, and still >>no reply, it's been a few months. >> >>I don't know if ATI will listen better if we have more people asking >>for the docs, but that's where I'd start, then get ahold of Manuel. >> > >I've been intending to join in on the Mach64 development as well, but I >need to brush up on my C first (and read all the docs). Where would we >go to request specs/apply for Developer Membership? > >_______________________________________________ >Dri-devel mailing list >Dri...@li... >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel > |
From: Zilvinas V. <zva...@ca...> - 2001-08-20 02:47:45
|
> > I don't know if ATI will listen better if we have more people asking for > the docs, but that's where I'd start, then get ahold of Manuel. Maybe "dear" ATI would listen if people start sending ATI video cards back to them. Maybe not so bad idea .... I used to think ATI is friendly ... I'm not anymore. > > Carl Busjahn > -- Zilvinas Valinskas |
From: James J. <ou...@so...> - 2001-08-20 04:47:38
|
Just a note you guys, I did apply as a developer to ATI and got accepted within 2 days. This does NOT give me access to technical documentation about their chipsets. I directly asked them for this information and I got a reply basically saying "We have gotten quite a few requests for information on the mach 64 architecture lately, and have not yet decided if we are going to release this information yet and/or who we are going to release it to if we did". So at least they they haven't been completely ignoring us. I'd say getting all up in their face about it isn't going to be a great idea, just let them do their corporate thing, give them a month or something, then try something new I guess. BTW, anyone who is working on mach64 stuff and wants to send me patches so we can work together, send me a mail, I've currently gotten about... nowhere myself. -James Zilvinas Valinskas wrote: >>I don't know if ATI will listen better if we have more people asking for >>the docs, but that's where I'd start, then get ahold of Manuel. >> > >Maybe "dear" ATI would listen if people start sending ATI video cards >back to them. Maybe not so bad idea .... > > >I used to think ATI is friendly ... I'm not anymore. > >>Carl Busjahn >> > |
From: Mike A. H. <mh...@re...> - 2001-08-20 05:02:30
|
On Sun, 19 Aug 2001, James Jones wrote: >Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 09:46:21 -0700 >From: James Jones <ou...@so...> >To: dri...@li... >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed >List-Id: <dri-devel.lists.sourceforge.net> >Subject: Re: mach64 work > >Just a note you guys, I did apply as a developer to ATI and got accepted >within 2 days. This does NOT give me access to technical documentation >about their chipsets. I directly asked them for this information and I >got a reply basically saying "We have gotten quite a few requests for >information on the mach 64 architecture lately, and have not yet decided >if we are going to release this information yet and/or who we are going >to release it to if we did". > >So at least they they haven't been completely ignoring us. I'd say >getting all up in their face about it isn't going to be a great idea, >just let them do their corporate thing, give them a month or something, >then try something new I guess. This is the important thing here. If someone asks for docs and doesn't get them right away instantly, and then they bad mouth ATI (or any other vendor for that matter) it gives the company VERY little incentive to release specs to anyone at all for what would be considered a widely used by more or less obsolete chipset. If people want docs, they need to be IMHO very professional about it, and patient. You always get much further with honey than you do with guns. |
From: Carl B. <afn...@af...> - 2001-08-20 13:03:45
|
Hello, I've been very professional in both my applications to ATI, and so far, they've just sat unanswered for months. Is there some kind of trick to it? Perphaps we (the mach64 developers) should start a sourceforge project of our own, and have several people to develop the driver? Thanks, Carl Busjahn Mike A. Harris wrote: >On Sun, 19 Aug 2001, James Jones wrote: > >>Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 09:46:21 -0700 >>From: James Jones <ou...@so...> >>To: dri...@li... >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed >>List-Id: <dri-devel.lists.sourceforge.net> >>Subject: Re: mach64 work >> >>Just a note you guys, I did apply as a developer to ATI and got accepted >>within 2 days. This does NOT give me access to technical documentation >>about their chipsets. I directly asked them for this information and I >>got a reply basically saying "We have gotten quite a few requests for >>information on the mach 64 architecture lately, and have not yet decided >>if we are going to release this information yet and/or who we are going >>to release it to if we did". >> >>So at least they they haven't been completely ignoring us. I'd say >>getting all up in their face about it isn't going to be a great idea, >>just let them do their corporate thing, give them a month or something, >>then try something new I guess. >> > >This is the important thing here. If someone asks for docs and >doesn't get them right away instantly, and then they bad mouth >ATI (or any other vendor for that matter) it gives the company >VERY little incentive to release specs to anyone at all for what >would be considered a widely used by more or less obsolete >chipset. > >If people want docs, they need to be IMHO very professional about >it, and patient. You always get much further with honey than you >do with guns. > > >_______________________________________________ >Dri-devel mailing list >Dri...@li... >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel > |
From: Daryll S. <da...@va...> - 2001-08-20 15:01:51
|
On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 09:03:53AM -0400, Carl Busjahn wrote: > I've been very professional in both my applications to ATI, and so far, > they've just sat unanswered for months. Is there some kind of trick to > it? Perphaps we (the mach64 developers) should start a sourceforge > project of our own, and have several people to develop the driver? I can't help on how to get the docs, but I don't know why you'd want to start your own project. We've offerred to give people CVS access here, and starting another project would cause a lot of administrative trouble for you, us, and XFree86. Our typical rule is that you submit a couple patches before we give write access to our CVS. That serves two purposes, it makes sure people are doing real work instead of just asking for access because it would be cool, and it gives us a chance to look over your work and make sure it's reasonable before you start writing into our tree. As long as you work on a branch and are careful about merging to the trunk that policy seems to work pretty well for other outside groups like PPC and BSD. The jam here is that since the board hangs when you submit packets, no one has gotten a patch sent in. Anyone interested in working on the Mach64 can check out the CVS tree anonymously and work on it. I expect they have to tackle the hang first off. Once that's done real work can start on the Mach64 and more people can contribute. - |Daryll |
From: Carl B. <afn...@af...> - 2001-08-20 20:14:24
|
I'm nearly all for the DRI project, and I'm not blaming anyone within it, or the process for getting write access to CVS. My basic point is that, ATI may be more free to release the documentation to a project specifically for developing for the ATI mach64. Though, now we realize that at least one person has the documentation, and other people have ATI developer membership. Too bad we can't be in on the CEO meeting at ATI ;-) Carl Busjahn Daryll Strauss wrote: >On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 09:03:53AM -0400, Carl Busjahn wrote: > >>I've been very professional in both my applications to ATI, and so far, >>they've just sat unanswered for months. Is there some kind of trick to >>it? Perphaps we (the mach64 developers) should start a sourceforge >>project of our own, and have several people to develop the driver? >> > >I can't help on how to get the docs, but I don't know why you'd want to >start your own project. We've offerred to give people CVS access >here, and starting another project would cause a lot of administrative >trouble for you, us, and XFree86. > >Our typical rule is that you submit a couple patches before we give >write access to our CVS. That serves two purposes, it makes sure people >are doing real work instead of just asking for access because it would >be cool, and it gives us a chance to look over your work and make sure >it's reasonable before you start writing into our tree. As long as you >work on a branch and are careful about merging to the trunk that policy >seems to work pretty well for other outside groups like PPC and BSD. > >The jam here is that since the board hangs when you submit packets, no >one has gotten a patch sent in. Anyone interested in working on the >Mach64 can check out the CVS tree anonymously and work on it. I expect >they have to tackle the hang first off. Once that's done real work can >start on the Mach64 and more people can contribute. > > - |Daryll > > |
From: Mike A. H. <mh...@re...> - 2001-08-20 04:59:24
|
On Sun, 19 Aug 2001, Zilvinas Valinskas wrote: >Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 22:47:38 -0400 >From: Zilvinas Valinskas <zva...@ca...> >To: Carl Busjahn <afn...@af...> >Cc: Ryan Matthew Smith <ca...@um...>, dri...@li... >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >List-Id: <dri-devel.lists.sourceforge.net> >Subject: Re: mach64 work > >> >> I don't know if ATI will listen better if we have more people asking for >> the docs, but that's where I'd start, then get ahold of Manuel. > >Maybe "dear" ATI would listen if people start sending ATI video cards >back to them. Maybe not so bad idea .... > >I used to think ATI is friendly ... I'm not anymore. Aside from ATI and Matrox currently, you're not likely to find a more open source friendly video hardware vendor. Getting docs from other vendors while sometimes possible, is not always easy. I'm sure many developers here can attest to that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike A. Harris Shipping/mailing address: OS Systems Engineer 190 Pittsburgh Ave., Sault Ste. Marie, XFree86 maintainer Ontario, Canada, P6C 5B3 Red Hat Inc. Phone: (705)949-2136 http://www.redhat.com ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris Red Hat XFree86 mailing list: xfr...@re... IRC: #redhat-xfree86 on irc.openprojects.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
From: Frank C. E. <fe...@ai...> - 2001-08-21 15:41:10
|
Mike A. Harris wrote: > Aside from ATI and Matrox currently, you're not likely to find a > more open source friendly video hardware vendor. Getting docs > from other vendors while sometimes possible, is not always easy. > I'm sure many developers here can attest to that. It's like pulling teeth. SiS sent my employer 2D and MPEG decode register info but didn't give us the 3D info (My current employer's got a few projects where having the full SiS DRI driver would be nice- without that register info it's going to be harder for me to help them keep it supported...)- this was under NDA and our contact in the US said that they normally don't give out the 3D info for their chipsets, ever (Which is a bald-faced lie; they did give everything out for the 6326.). Trident won't give us the time of day (Which is surprising, considering that they helped out with the sound chips they make!). NVidia promised open source, delivered a broken, buggy driver and then closed up everything again. Imagination insists on the driver development for the Power VR architechture being in-house for all OS platforms they choose to support. If I can get at info, it's usually under NDA, incomplete, and/or will cost you an arm and a leg (Tvia, formerly IGS, wants $5k to get access to the info to work the 2D and Video passthrough support on their 5XXX series of display chips...). It's really amazing how much they've clammed up over the years ATI's been fairly good to us. Having said this, I find it disappointing that the data that they gave the Utah-GLX team for the Rage 128 was "sanitized" so it wasn't terribly useful; they'd cut out all the 3D and CCE info out of the docs I've got. -- Frank Earl |
From: Mike A. H. <mh...@re...> - 2001-08-20 04:56:51
|
On Sun, 19 Aug 2001, Carl Busjahn wrote: >Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 21:00:13 -0400 >From: Carl Busjahn <afn...@af...> >To: Ryan Matthew Smith <ca...@um...>, dri...@li... >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed >List-Id: <dri-devel.lists.sourceforge.net> >Subject: Re: mach64 work > >Hey, >Always nice to see someone joining in. I have been doing very little in >the development of the mach64 card, and really the work is held up, >because ATI will not release their Rage Pro/Mach64 documentation to >anyone here. In fact, Manuel Teriea (he's working on guessing the >memory addresses and other stuff from Gareth hughes unusable old branch) >and I have both applied for Developer Membership, and still no reply, >it's been a few months. > >I don't know if ATI will listen better if we have more people asking for >the docs, but that's where I'd start, then get ahold of Manuel. To the contrary, someone in here was wanting ATI docs, and so I contacted ATI to help him get signed up for devrel. To my knowledge he was signed up ok. People wanting access to information need to be polite and patient with vendors, and go about things the proper way. ATI is one of the most open video hardware vendors. I don't know if anyone has gotten the exact information they've needed, but I do know from reading discussions here that most people have not tried to go through the right channels. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike A. Harris Shipping/mailing address: OS Systems Engineer 190 Pittsburgh Ave., Sault Ste. Marie, XFree86 maintainer Ontario, Canada, P6C 5B3 Red Hat Inc. Phone: (705)949-2136 http://www.redhat.com ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris Red Hat XFree86 mailing list: xfr...@re... IRC: #redhat-xfree86 on irc.openprojects.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
From: <pa...@ik...> - 2001-08-20 16:11:12
|
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Mike A. Harris wrote: > To the contrary, someone in here was wanting ATI docs, and so I > contacted ATI to help him get signed up for devrel. To my > knowledge he was signed up ok. People wanting access to > information need to be polite and patient with vendors, and go > about things the proper way. > At least I got the docs from ATI for mach64 in the spring. Too bad I haven't had time to start hacking the source.. Do you guys need some information I could provide to you from the specs? - Pasi K=E4rkk=E4inen ^ . . Linux / - \ Choice.of.the .Next.Generation. |