[lowrisc-dev] Open GPU for the first CPU
jeffbush001 at gmail.com
Fri Feb 13 18:01:40 GMT 2015
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Reinoud Zandijk <reinoud at netbsd.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 02:13:53AM +1100, Jookia wrote:
>> On 02/14/2015 01:56 AM, Reinoud Zandijk wrote:
>> >Not to stir a flamewar, but his GPU hardware code is released under LGPL which
>> >might be feasable.
>> Not wanting to stir a flame war either, but if there's only one option for
>> an open GPU in the end, perhaps it'd be better to have a branch that's
>> LGPL/GPU with the GPU until a permissive GPU is viable?
>> I'd hate to see an open GPU not used due to it's license.
> True, but one has to draw a line somewhere; LGPL is usable but GPL isn't. This
> is since stuff labeled with LGPL can be linked/used in say a BSD or whatever
> (compatible) license where as GPL can't since it can only be used in an
> all-GPL environment.
I don't have strong religion about the license--early on, this actually
used Apache 2.0. Since I'm the only author right now, that's pretty easy
Perhaps this is a foolish question, but what's the concern with LGPL? :)
>> That said from a practical standpoint it'd be nice to outline what
>> performance benchmarks a GPU should achieve to be deemed usable. Desktop
>> compositing at minimum, though playable Quake would be nice.
>> I'm probably vastly underestimating how unfinished and low performance the
>> GPU would be, but I'm just amazed it exists at all.
This project is kinda experimental, because it has no fixed function
graphics hardware. While I don't think the performance is horrible, I
wouldn't expect it to be competitive with a traditional embedded GPU for
graphics workloads, especially at the low end. However, I haven't
made apples-to-apples comparisons.
I've been thinking about a new design that looks more like a traditional
GPU and would be more graphics-centric.
More information about the lowrisc-dev