cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/12544593

Alex Deucher:

The HDMI Forum has rejected our proposal unfortunately. At this time an open source HDMI 2.1 implementation is not possible without running afoul of the HDMI Forum requirements.

    • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      HDMI did have a head start, but nowadays, the answer is money. As usual.

      • spongebue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        That also includes money to upgrade, for example, display equipment in virtually every office conference room, classroom, home theater, etc. It took a long time to shake VGA in those settings and now that that’s largely been dropped in favor of HDMI it’ll be a tall order to chase after the next best thing with no benefit noticeable to 99.9% of people.

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      It’s an older interface than DP and has better support for audio early on (I.e. all of those proprietary passthrough audio formats that home theater setups support) so it became dominant in TVs. Monitors are still DP first but likely have a HDMI port as well.

        • didnt_readit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          That kind of makes sense though. I figure they assume you’ll have one computer hooked up and then a bunch of consumer devices that all use HDMI. And if you need a second computer hooked up you can also use HDMI if needed. Probably makes the most sense to the most people as having more DP in place of HDMI would just mean the average user couldn’t hook up as many devices since (almost?) no consumer devices use DP unfortunately.

    • gray@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      You forget every desktop GPU having 3 DisplayPorts and only 1 HDMI, and USB C supporting DisplayPort?

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      In my experience, its cause monitors are already over priced, and adding a display port to it seems to add at least another 100 on top of that.

      Which is why I prefer HDMI. Less cable headache too, since I only have to keep one type of cable in stock and so i can easily switch for testing/diagnostics/layout change purposes.

        • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I didnt say they did, I said they seem to, since in my experience every monitor that had similar spec, but had a display port, was about 100 dollars on top of whatever the hdmi only one had.

  • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    If I was AMD I’d tell them to suck my ass and reverse engineer that shit anyway. Unfortunately I’m not AMD, lol.

    • Atemu@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      4 months ago

      They don’t need to RE it; they have access to the full spec and everything for their Windows drivers anyways. They’d open themselves up for litigation if they implemented this behind the forum’s back though and that’s something AMD (understandably) simply won’t do.

      • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        They could hire dedicated teams that don’t have access to the full spec to RE it and it should be above board, as long as it’s done right ofc.

        • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          No, they can’t. AMD is a member of the HDMI forum, which means they’re contractually obligated to follow the forum’s rules. In exchange, they get voting rights on decisions like this one, the right to propose changes to the HDMI standards, technical details that are protected by NDAs, etc. They wouldn’t throw that all away and open themselves up to a lawsuit just for their OSS drivers.

          • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Is there a specific contractual obligation stating that they can’t hire teams whom have no access to NDA protected specs to RE HDMI products through the usual legal means? If not, then they should be well within their legal rights, tho it’d be worth consulting a lawyer first. Now, would it damage their relationship with the HDMI people? maybe, likely.

            • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              Their contacts are most likely protected by NDAs, but they’re also written by lawyers who know how to close loopholes. There’s no way a SIG like the HDMI forum would allow members to release compatible products without following the rules.

              Even if it isn’t covered by the contract, the other members could hold a vote to remove AMD from the forum.

  • vividspecter@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Hopefully AMD start doing what Intel does and including a DP -> HDMI 2.1 converter in the card itself. There are already third party adapters that work reasonably well with existing AMD GPUs, especially on Linux. If they had their own implementation they could iron out the quirks and driver issues and get something that should be equivalent to real HDMI 2.1.