> all sorts of "linux'isms" from code daily and deal with the pain of porting non portable Linux code to their platform.
If you're developing for Linux, using Linux specific technology, then of course there would be porting effort required.
Same as if you want to make you Windows stuff work on Linux, there should be porting required - after all, it's a different platform,
What AMD wants to do is to sidestep as much of the porting as possible, by effectively shipping their Windows code inside the Linux kernel.
Linux is open source, so if the kernel developers desire better designed code, they are free to change the code up to their quality levels. If the kernel development team does not have the manpower for this, they should better think about a way to maintain the kernel that involves less work. One example (among many) would be to think about a way to keep the internal kernel interfaces typically stable over many years so that only rarely there is a lot work to be done for updating all the drivers to the new internal kernel interfaces.
> If you're developing for Linux, using Linux specific technology, then of course there would be porting effort required.
The released open source drivers seem to work quite well (as they do on Windows). The problem is that they don't fit the taste of the kernel developers.
Open source does not mean, "any code accepted here!"
> if the kernel developers desire better designed code, they are free to change the code up to their quality levels.
They are also free to reject bad code and demand that if you want you code in, you should improve it.
I don't get this mentality at all; why should the kernel developers accept inferior code and then improve it? Isn't that the responsibility of the vendor who designed the product? After all, AMD is a for profit company, not a charity. Why should the other developers provide charity to make AMD code better? So that AMD can sell more units or have better PR? What?
>The problem is that they don't fit the taste of the kernel developers.
That's not the problem.
The problem is that the drivers were designed for Windows, not Linux and such code is not suitable for inclusion in the Linux kernel.
If anything, that post highlights the lack of quality among the amd driver team, and doesn't have to do much with 'taste'.
Or, they could have AMD do the work, since apparently they're the ones who didn't listen -- after being told months ago -- that this rejection could happen when they tried to include a HAL with their driver. I think that perfectly works: the kernel developers don't have to "do all that work" involving un-fucking AMD's driver, and AMD instead has to do the work. Sounds good to me.
There's literally 0 point in accepting the code as-is, because everyone would be on the hook for maintenance it in the mean time, while it got un-crappified, and it would make graphics subsystem maintainers life worse. No. Kick it out, make them do it the right way, and when they come back -- they can talk.
This whole thread has got plenty of of entitled whiners and people with a bone-to-pick against Linux, like yourself, bitching,about OSS maintainers not making their own lives harder because you want feel good about your graphics driver. Get over it. Or, get involved -- maybe you could send a few patches to AMD maintainers to clean out some of the crap.
AMD is not being banned from kernel development, but they're going to have to do it right. Just like the other 20-30 companies that regularly contribute upstream to Linux with their money/developers.
In fact, Linux often accepts drivers for hardware that only certain companies have access to and are of no use to anyone else in the general public. Why? Because they played by the rules, meaning the overall maintenance cost to include those drivers becomes far smaller in the long run. The cost of including the AMDGPU driver, as it is now, is astronomically high in comparison.
> The released open source drivers seem to work quite well (as they do on Windows). The problem is that they don't fit the taste of the kernel developers.
No. Let's be clear: the problem is AMD can't listen, and people like you apparently, can't read. That's about all it comes down to. You are free to now whine and complain about how incredibly important this is and how it's definitely worth breaking the rules over and how much it means to you, and I'm sure the kernel developers owe you this feature, or something (after all, developers are just robots with no lives and if they don't work hard enough, they're bad.)
Meanwhile, it will be ignored, Linux will go on (and continue to crush its competitors in the spaces it matters in), and the world will still turn. And maybe in a year from now AMD will actually have something worth merging. In the mean time, Nvidia will continue to dominate them in the compute market. Maybe actually listening 9 months ago would have saved them some time and market share.
NVIDIA is about the furthest thing from a shining example of good behavior in the Linux kernel. By not having open source drivers at all, they're far worse.
(By the way, their closed source driver has a HAL too.)
