VIA releases chipset documentation [LWN.net]

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 23, 2008 23:26 UTC (Sun) by bryce (guest, #16388) [Link] (12 responses)

This is excellent news, well done VIA. :-)

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 24, 2008 0:02 UTC (Mon) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] (3 responses)

BTW it's taipei not taipai

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 24, 2008 0:49 UTC (Mon) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (2 responses)

Not necessarily, a lot of Chinese names has several ways of spelling, since there are several different sinogram-to-latin systems.

(I haven't checked if it's the case here, but it's definitely a possibility)

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 24, 2008 2:31 UTC (Mon) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] (1 responses)

> Not necessarily, a lot of Chinese names has several ways of spelling, since there are several different sinogram-to-latin systems.

Wow, I'm really straying off topic here, but...

I lived in china. I've seen the names of chinese cities spelled several ways, according to the romanization method (taiwan uses wade-giles, the mainland uses pinyin, but IMHO yale gives the least incorrect pronunciation from an english speaker on the first try) but taipei (pronounced "tie bay") has never been spelled that way in any romanization method I've seen.

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 27, 2008 3:29 UTC (Thu) by oska (guest, #25556) [Link]

> taipei (pronounced "tie bay")

Actually the consonant at the start of the second syllable is "between" what English speakers think of as 'p' and 'b'. It is a bilabial plosive that is voiceless like 'p' but unaspirated like 'b'. It is a common mistake for monolinguals to interpret latin letters in the way they are pronounced in their own language, not realising that they are often mapped on to sounds that don't exist (or are not recognised as distinct sounds) in their own language.

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 24, 2008 5:55 UTC (Mon) by undefined (guest, #40876) [Link] (7 responses)

"excellent news"? what readily-available (eg newegg) products use a via/s3 onboard graphics chipset? this is too little, too late. a token of good will? yes. useful? not really.

i just searched newegg: one cheap amd motherboard (biostar), a few cheap intel motherboards (biostar & pc chips), and the hp via netbooks. there use to be more motherboards a year or two ago, when socket 939 boards were still plentiful, as that's when i bought mine, but not now. and the hp netbooks: afaik, it's yet to be seen if hp continues with via or if anybody else begins using via, as the market is dominated by intel.

via use to be the top-dog at supplying onboard graphics for motherboards. but now intel, amd/ati, and nvidia all offer onboard graphics and with better support than via.

for the record: i suffered through the (open|uni)chrome video driver confusion/hell for a year before i gave up and bought a cheap ati video card six months ago to use instead of the onboard via. so long, via.

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 24, 2008 6:25 UTC (Mon) by laf0rge (subscriber, #6469) [Link] (5 responses)

You seem to have missed the fact that VIA is no longer producing chipsets for Intel or AMD processors for about one year now. Also, VIA was always only putting their graphics in integrated chipsetes, i.e. not dedicated GPUs that you can attach to AGP or PCIe.

The only place where you will find VIA graphics units is either

1) old systems (Unichrome / Unichrome Pro core)
2) new systems with Via C7 or CN, using a VIA chipset (CX700/VX800) together with a VIA CPU.

So it's not surprising that there are no socket 939 boards vith VIA.

I disagree that it's too late. There are still a number of those systems, just look how popular the various VIA based EPIA / miniITX / nanoITX / ... boards are. There's also lots of custom embedded boards, used in inflight entertainment systems, firewall appliances (hardware crypto!) and the like.

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 24, 2008 9:59 UTC (Mon) by obi (guest, #5784) [Link] (4 responses)

I wouldn't have minded going for a netbook with a Nano, also considering the fact that I tend to use crypto on my disk and I've seen what difference it can make (VIA's marketing could exploit this argument better, I suppose).

But for some mysterious reason it seems like VIA is leaving the entire market to Intel's Atom (see hp mini-note 2133 -> hp mini 1000).

Anyways, this announcement is nice - but then they are competing with Intel, one of the better open-source participants out there.

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 24, 2008 10:30 UTC (Mon) by gnb (subscriber, #5132) [Link] (2 responses)

> But for some mysterious reason it seems like VIA is leaving the entire
>market to Intel's Atom (see hp mini-note 2133 -> hp mini 1000).
In fact I haven't seen any evidence of anyone shipping consumer
nano-based products, be it mini-ITX boards, laptops... which is odd
several months after the announcement. Which suggests either it's all
going to the industrial embedded market or they're having trouble
bringing something to production (either boards or CPUs) (or I'm looking
in the wrong places, always possible). It's a pity as I'd quite like one.
Anyone know anything more?

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 24, 2008 10:54 UTC (Mon) by Cato (guest, #7643) [Link] (1 responses)

The ITX market is pretty specialised - there are online retailers who just sell ITX kit but they are for specific niches including home built in-car computers, low power PCs, industrial applications, etc. See http://www.itx-warehouse.co.uk/ProductSearch.aspx?Filter=... for some Nano based products for example.

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 24, 2008 12:01 UTC (Mon) by gnb (subscriber, #5132) [Link]

There are a reasonable number of shops selling mini-ITX boards to end
users, but few of them seem to be carrying nano-based boards. In the link
you provided (thank you for looking that up by the way) none of the
boards seem to have a nano CPU. One has a "C7® 1.8GHz NanoBGA2 processor"
but that's just the previous-generation C7 in a smaller BGA package.

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 24, 2008 10:57 UTC (Mon) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

There is no mysterious reason,
1. Via's best hardware opportunity is netbook, not laptop or desktop side,
2. Via botches its FLOSS Linux support,
3. Intel invests heavily in FLOSS Linux support
4. ~ 30% of netbook sales are Linux,
5. IHVs dump Via for Intel/Atom.

And now we see
6. Via discovers a new FLOSS religion and is trying to get itself supported Linux-side.

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 27, 2008 12:44 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

Unfortunately I'm stuck with a VIA chipset on my laptop, so I can't just go out and buy a different graphics card. So I for one find this useful and relevant.

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 24, 2008 1:28 UTC (Mon) by bbb (guest, #49804) [Link] (4 responses)

Minor nitpick with the phrase "Harald Welte responds:"

According to Wikipedia (and I think it was reported here, too), Harald Welte is actually employed as the "open source liaison" for VIA. How can the PR spokes person for VIA respond to an announcement made by VIA?

In my opinion, he could restate it, he could elaborate on it, he could emphasize parts of it, but he can't "respond" to it because, as a PR person and for the scope of this announcement, he's one of "them." (which isn't necessarily bad, but it is not like he's a neutral observer in this case)

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 24, 2008 1:55 UTC (Mon) by ikm (guest, #493) [Link] (3 responses)

One may well think that elaborating, emphasizing et al are all forms of responding.

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 24, 2008 2:07 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (2 responses)

"Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct." - Number 1.0

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 24, 2008 13:20 UTC (Mon) by ikm (guest, #493) [Link]

He's Number 1.0, after all.

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 27, 2008 1:50 UTC (Thu) by leoc (guest, #39773) [Link]

Best. Show. Ever.

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 24, 2008 13:19 UTC (Mon) by honzalinux (guest, #55306) [Link] (2 responses)

What about the S3 chrome video cards.
http://www.s3graphics.com/en/products/desktop/

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 25, 2008 10:44 UTC (Tue) by schlobinux (subscriber, #50808) [Link]

From the organizational pov VIA and S3 are different companies, hence they have different opensource strategies. With the few information I can gather about the S3 GPUs, from the technical pov, the common points between the VIA IGPs and S3 GPUs are not so big anyway.

VIA releases chipset documentation

Posted Nov 25, 2008 16:48 UTC (Tue) by laf0rge (subscriber, #6469) [Link]

S3 graphics is an independent company and not a subsidiary of VIA (like many people tend to think!!!).

What they do with regard to Linux support is their own business.

S3 GPU's are not the same as those that VIA uses in it's IGP products.

Yes. Now nvidia sucks even more.

Posted Nov 24, 2008 14:36 UTC (Mon) by sylware (guest, #35259) [Link] (12 responses)

Intel, AMD, Via... nvidia still maintain a hate generator by not releasing the programming specs.

Yes. Now nvidia sucks even more.

Posted Nov 24, 2008 14:41 UTC (Mon) by jch (guest, #51929) [Link] (11 responses)

Intel still hasn't released firmware-level programming documentation. We're still stuck with binary blobs with the Intel drivers.

Yes. Now nvidia sucks even more.

Posted Nov 24, 2008 16:15 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (7 responses)

Which graphics card vendors have released firmware-level programming documentation? Heck, which wireless vendors?

wireless

Posted Nov 24, 2008 22:01 UTC (Mon) by xaoc (guest, #54140) [Link] (4 responses)

I using ath9k right now which work quite nicely. I doesn't require binary crap i think.

wireless

Posted Nov 24, 2008 22:12 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

No, because Atheros's (admittedly thin) firmware is in a ROM on the card instead of being loaded at runtime.

wireless

Posted Nov 28, 2008 14:58 UTC (Fri) by jch (guest, #51929) [Link] (1 responses)

There's a big difference between Atheros' and Intel's firmware.

Atheros' firmware is a very thin layer that doesn't change. All of the interesting stuff (association, link quality computation, rate control etc.) happens in the driver.

Intel's firmware is a huge piece of software, larger than most drivers. It implements a lot of stuff that any self-respecting free software developer would like to be able to modify.

wireless

Posted Nov 28, 2008 15:18 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

I don't disagree, but reliance on closed firmware doesn't magically vanish just because the firmware is in the chip rather than in ram.

It does require binary blob

Posted Nov 26, 2008 23:04 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I always wondered why so many people are insisting on having source for firmware of videocard or wireless chip while happily using binary blobs embedded in HDD, CPU (yes, both Intel and AMD CPUs require binary blobs to operate) and other components. Why 10 or more binary blobs embedded here in there in your system don't bother you, but single one sitting on your CD is such a big deal? And why trivial move of said blob from CD to embedded ROM suddenly make hardware more acceptable?

I can see why binary drivers embedded in kernel are bad idea: there are no "walls" in the kernel and so any driver can bring the whole system down (and DMA gurantees that even microkernel will not solve this problem), but firmware for Intel wireless device works on different CPU - like firmware for HDD, CD-ROM or Ethernet card! The host system just uploads it, nothing more...

Yes. Now nvidia sucks even more.

Posted Nov 28, 2008 14:54 UTC (Fri) by jch (guest, #51929) [Link] (1 responses)

> Which graphics card vendors have released firmware-level programming documentation?

As far as I know, none. Your point being?

There's a lot of neat stuff that could be done if we could hack the firmware. Intel are trying to advertise themselves as being the do-gooder of Free Software, so please let them release firmware development tools.

Yes. Now nvidia sucks even more.

Posted Nov 28, 2008 15:17 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

Well, other than the minor problem that Intel's current graphics hardware doesn't have any downloadable firmware, AMD and VIA are both trying to position themselves as open-source friendly companies. Holding Intel to different standards seems somewhat odd.

Yes. Now nvidia sucks even more.

Posted Nov 24, 2008 18:30 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] (2 responses)

If only they were willing to freeze their firmware in immutable silicon on their products, we'd be satisfied! Or, rather, we wouldn't know there was more to ask for.

(Of course, it would be nice in an operational sense if Intel devices as shipped would work without needing something else to reconnect them with their binary blobs; that way, operating system distributors wouldn't have to distribute the blob that they can't modify. It might happen if demand for SSDs drives down the price of flash enough that it's cost effective to ship reasonable firmware blobs for on-board hardware in on-board flash instead of putting them on user-data block storage devices or driver CDs.)

Yes. Now nvidia sucks even more.

Posted Nov 28, 2008 14:55 UTC (Fri) by jch (guest, #51929) [Link] (1 responses)

> If only they were willing to freeze their firmware in immutable silicon on their products, we'd be satisfied! Or, rather, we wouldn't know there was more to ask for.

Who ever said that?

The original IBM PC's BIOS was frozen in silicon. That didn't prevent smart people from reverse-engineering it and other smart people from providing improved replacements.

Yes. Now nvidia sucks even more.

Posted Nov 28, 2008 16:54 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

many people (including RMS) have said that they have no problem with sourceless firmware if it's in ROM, they only have a problem with sourceless firmware if it's in flash or loaded by the driver.