HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/hdmi-forum-rejects-amds-hdmi-21-open-source-driver

344 177 2 years ago

Sakos• 2 years ago

Feels like it's time for governments to get involved. It's not reasonable for a ubiquitous format like HDMI to be restricted like this.

wmf2• 2 years ago

Between patents, trade secrets, and DMCA, the government is the source of the problem here. Arguably the FTC could step in here but I think they have bigger problems to tackle.

shiroiushi8• 2 years ago

Between patents, trade secrets, and DMCA, the government is the source of the problem here.

The government created the playing field. The only entity that can fix the situation is the government: they created a bad playing field, and they need to fix it.

anordal• 2 years ago

But not all governments, thankfully. Remember DVD-Jon? He won the trial for breaking DVD crypto, because consumer rights stood above trade secrets.

kelnos2• 2 years ago

I agree. It should be illegal to restrict people from making open source implementations of industry standards like this.

I don't expect that to ever happen, of course. But I can dream...

jakeogh3• 2 years ago

I'm with you in principal, but cleanroom reverse engineering is legal. The issue here is AMD signed the NDA's to read the secret spec and write the code, hence they cant release it.

The solution is to not buy proprietary standards[0], in this case, I'm looking for DisplayPort when I buy... and a big + to AMD for trying.

Hey Intel! Come back!

[0] Pile of comments here pretending it's sooo difficult.

anal_reactor• 2 years ago

Seriously, we managed to standardize charging ports by law, maybe we can also agree on using an open standard for displays.

jakeogh3• 2 years ago

That is the real issue, because ultimately, this is about the memory hole. A re-upload of a camcorder copy of a VHS is no threat; it will be degraded (again) when the digital archivist who saved it's re-encoded copy[1] (from whatever video platform deleted it) posts it again. Intercepting a exact bitstream circumvents this modern camcorder copy deliberate problem, and would ultimately obliterate the non-arguments to keep the original file unavailable.

On the other hand, a signed sha3-256 digest along with the original[0] file before YT re-encoded it (and stripped it's metadata) is unobtanium for the plebs. It is the _most_ important data for the host. It's the first thing they backup. As far as I know, they (YT/Rumble/Tora3) never talk about it. Some would love to only serve hallucinated (when convenient) upscaled derivatives.

Power is threatened by persistent lossless public memory.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20427179

[1]: (Mr. Bean, 2024) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUezfuy8Qpc

elihu• 2 years ago

I think it's actually pretty typical for important electrical interfaces to not be public or royalty-free, as much as I wish that wasn't the case.

That's not to say the government shouldn't get involved. I think the bigger thing here is that if an industry group is specifically setting things up so that Linux is shut out of having high-end video support, then it looks an awful lot like cartel behavior -- industry incumbents are working together to lock out a competitor. Maybe it could be the basis of an anti-trust lawsuit?

Presumably Apple and Microsoft would have the most to gain. Microsoft is a member of the forum. Apple doesn't appear to be, but an Apple guy is on their board of directors.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how such a lawsuit would work. Who represents Linux in this case, since it's not owned by any one company. Linus Torvalds? AMD? And would all the companies involved in the HDMI forum be liable for the behavior of the forum (which would include AMD)? Does intentionality matter? I.e. if Linux was excluded accidentally rather than deliberately?

https://hdmiforum.org/about/hdmi-forum-board-directors/ https://hdmiforum.org/members/

jeroenhd• 2 years ago

I wonder if the HDMI forum can be considered a gatekeeper in terms of the EU's DMA. Their influence on the market is rather indirect, but I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of the EU uses HDMI every single day.

xxpor• 2 years ago

Note this is from February

broodbucket• 2 years ago

On the one hand, this move ensures the quality and consistency of HDMI experience.

Does it though? Does it really?

I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort.

shiroiushi8• 2 years ago

They're handing a win to DisplayPort.

Is this useful, if all the relevant devices only have HDMI ports and not DP?

adrian_b4• 2 years ago

What I find very annoying is that a very large number of small computers and laptops have both DisplayPort and HDMI, but they have full-size HDMI connectors and only USB Type C DisplayPort.

Using Type C for DisplayPort instead of the good full-size DisplayPort connectors is less reliable (easy to disconnect accidentally) and it permits only shorter video cables.

More importantly, this blocks the Type C connector, which I need for other purposes, e.g. an external SSD. I do not want to carry a Type C dock, so I end using HDMI, even if I do not need HDMI and I do not want HDMI and even if in almost all cases the devices had enough free space for a full-size DisplayPort connector.

Even replacing the HDMI connector with a DisplayPort connector (so that the devices would have only full-size and Type C DisplayPort) is always a better solution, because there are a lot of cheap adapters from DisplayPort to HDMI, which do not need a separate power supply and they can even be incorporated inside the video cable. The reverse adapters, from HDMI to DisplayPort, are much more expensive and much bulkier, so usually they are not acceptable.

agilob2• 2 years ago

Well, yes. The only relevant device with HDMI that I have is a raspberry pi.

eqvinox6• 2 years ago

FYI: USB Type-C ports are DP ports on most modern laptops. You just need the correct cable (or a display with Type-C connector.) I have one of these https://www.club-3d.com/en/quick-view/2470/

(actually works both directions, e.g. if you have a portable display with only Type-C connectors like this https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-e14-g4-portable-monitor — BUT it can't power the display, you need to use another connection on the display for that.)

There is no HDMI over Type-C (there was an attempt at it, but it died. Probably for the better of not having even more Type-C confusion and interoperability issues.)

kelnos2• 2 years ago

Does it though? Does it really?

Of course not. It's just protectionism and rent-seeking.

I don't understand this move from HDMI Forum. They're handing a win to DisplayPort.

I don't think so, at least at this point. Most people don't have hardware that requires HDMI 2.1 in order to get full use out of them, and of those who do, not all of them use Linux and/or care about open source drivers.

Sure, that situation may change, and the HDMI Forum may walk back these requirements.

At any rate, for some reason DisplayPort has just not caught on all that much. You very rarely see them on TVs, and a good number of mid-/lower-end monitors don't have them either.

It's bizarre, really.

shmerl2• 2 years ago

May be it can change if USB 4 will sneak in and supplant HDMI in those devices, since it can route both HDMI and DP.

Rinzler892• 2 years ago

Of course not. It's just protectionism and rent-seeking.

Don't know why you're being downvoted but it's true. Especially when you see that the HDMI standard was developed by the cartel of TV manufacturers and major movie studios[1] when DVI and Display Port already existed but those didn't generate royalties or have DRM.

Despicable standard. There wasn't even a standards "war" like in VHS vs Betamax, or SD vs MemoryStick, or USB vs Fire Wire, to say that HDMI won over DisplayPort, it was simply shoved down consumers' throats since every TV, media player and games console only shipped with that port alone as they were manufactured by the same cartel that developed the HDMI standard.

So much for the so called "free market".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#History

2muchcoffeeman• 2 years ago

I have fewer display port devices now than 8 years ago.

Cu3PO42• 2 years ago

I don't think so, at least at this point. Most people don't have hardware that requires HDMI 2.1 in order to get full use out of them, and of those who do, not all of them use Linux and/or care about open source drivers.

I do, but this hardware doesn't have DisplayPort. I switched from Nvidia to AMD specifically for the open source Linux drivers, so I'm quite mad at the HDMI forum for this.

On the other hand, my next TV likely won't have DisplayPort, either, because almost none of them do, so it is indeed questionable whether this is going to loose them any mind share.

matja2• 2 years ago

Most people don't have hardware that requires HDMI 2.1 in order to get full use out of them, and of those who do, not all of them use Linux and/or care about open source drivers.

Arguably true, but I think that is changing all the time while there is a push towards open-source drivers regardless of the average user knowing/caring what that is, along with resolutions and refresh rates increasing.

I was affected by HDMI Forum's decision by buying an off-the-shelf 4K 120Hz monitor which refused to work at that resolution/refresh rate on an HDMI cable.

I was not expecting an arbitrary decision affecting software to be the cause instead of a hardware problem - which took me a while to figure out.

Now I know if I want to use my hardware to the full capacity, I need DisplayPort in future.

mobiuscog• 2 years ago

Linux gamers with modern TVs wanting VRR.

Maybe that's still a tiny amount, but it's likely the most common 'need'.

account427• 2 years ago

Most people don't have hardware that requires HDMI 2.1 in order to get full use out of them.

Most people maybe not but a simple 4K TV that can do > 60 FPS fits that criteria. Those aren't that rare anymore.

arghwhat5• 2 years ago

At any rate, for some reason DisplayPort has just not caught on all that much.

DisplayPort won everything, except not becoming the physical connector for home cinema. Heck, even within those HDMI-exposing devices, DP won.

The vast majority of display drivers speak eDP. Few things actually implement HDMI, and instead rely on DisplayPort to HDMI converters - that's true whether you're looking at a Nintendo Switch or your laptop. Heck, there is no support for HDMI over USB-C - every USB-C to HDMI cable/adapter embeds a HDMI converter chip, as HDMI altmode was abandoned early on.

The only devices I know of with "native" HDMI are the specialized TV and AV receiver SoCs. The rest is DP because no one cares about HDMI.

However, seeing that home cinema is pretty much purely an enthusiast thing these days (the casual user won't plug anything into their smart TV), I wonder if there's a chance of salvation here. The only real thing holding onto DisplayPort is eARC and some minor CEC features for AV receiver/soundbar use. Introducing some dedicated audio port would not only be a huge upgrade (some successor to toslink with more bandwidth and remote control support), but would also remove the pressure to use HDMI.

With that out of the way, the strongest market force there is - profitability - would automatically drive DisplayPort adoption in home cinema, as manufacturers could save not only converter chips, but HDMI royalties too.

lexicality• 2 years ago

At any rate, for some reason DisplayPort has just not caught on all that much. You very rarely see them on TVs, and a good number of mid-/lower-end monitors don't have them either.

I suspect all the nice features that make DisplayPort a better standard are harder to implement cheaply, eg chaining

sitkack2• 2 years ago

They're handing a win to DisplayPort.

And that would be bad how? DP is an excellent standard and royalty free.

eqvinox6• 2 years ago

I don't think there was an implication that this would be bad

HeckFeck2• 2 years ago

It's like what FireWire was to USB, but hopefully it has a better fate.

merlindru• 2 years ago

Not bad, but it's hard to think of a reason why they're doing this

It's protecting your standard from being used by others when wide adoption is the only thing that differentiates your standard from others

i.e. they're shooting themselves in the foot

Apofis• 2 years ago

Display port over USB-C is awesome. HDMI isn't needed anymore.

amelius• 2 years ago

quality and consistency of HDMI experience

For me the experience is not so good, given that HDMI signals always require at least 2 very long seconds to be recognized by a monitor, often even more.

shmerl2• 2 years ago

HDMI forum is a corrupt cartel which sole existence is to make sure they can continue fleecing everyone on patent fees.

gnabgib• 2 years ago

Discussions

(290 points, 6 months ago, 164 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39559318

(394 points, 6 months ago, 237 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39543291

account427• 2 years ago

And the source for all these articles: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/1417

shiroiushi8• 2 years ago

AMD should just leak the code and disclaim responsibility.

preisschild• 2 years ago

Even if they were to do that, it wouldn't really be a long term fix. Who would maintain this "unofficial" GPU driver? AMD themselves can't.

shiroiushi8• 2 years ago

If it has that much interest, someone will put it on GitHub and maintain it. Of course, it'd be unofficial, but so was support for MP3s in Linux distros for many years: you had to download software from outside the US to make it work.

0points• 2 years ago

Bye HDMI. You will not be missed.

WithinReason• 2 years ago

we can only hope...

Kon5ole• 2 years ago

Bummer - some TV's are tremendous value for money as computer monitors (Small 8K tv's that sometimes sell for sub-1000 usd) but they tend to only have HDMI.

I got 8k/60 working in Linux using an nvidia card and a dp-to-hdmi adapter cable, but I have a feeling it's not meant to be supported (the same cable does not work in windows).

vzaliva• 2 years ago

There was a post here on HN some time ago ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36681814 ), basically explaining that HDMI is terrible and DisplayPort is a much better technical solution.

So, perhaps people should favour DP instead of HDMI and gradually switch?

ThatPlayer4• 2 years ago

I don't think it's quite that simple. DP is still missing HDMI features like ARC and CEC, which are important for TVs. Even on my personal computer setup, I use the HDMI 2.1 ports on my monitor/GPU over the DP 1.4 ports because the DP port just doesn't have the bandwidth for 2560x1440 @ 240hz with 10-bit colour. That requires ~30 Gbit/s, more than DP1.4's ~26 Gbit/s.

Neither my monitor nor my GPU support DP2.0 which does have enough bandwidth. So until I upgrade both, I'm using HDMI. My computer is not outdated either, there's just nothing to upgrade to. None of Nvidia's consumer GPUs support DP2.0, and I can only find 2 monitors that support DP2.0. Anyone getting new hardware now will be in a similar situation to use HDMI2.1 over DP1.4 until their next upgrade.

eqvinox6• 2 years ago

I agree, but I also think your illustration of the problem is a bit off. The 90% gauss curve center part of customers doesn't need the tail end of display connector bandwidth.

However, devices have a lifecycle, and a lot of this hardware will still be in use in 2-3 years, where this will have moved into the center part of the gauss curve. Higher resolutions and HDR (which may push 10bit) will trip this much more than a 240Hz display [which ain't ever gonna' be mainline, really, considering we went down to 60Hz from CRTs with faster refresh rates]

CEC can be done over the DisplayPort AUX channel. I think there were attempts at an ARC equivalent but they floundered.

Another interesting question though is how much A/V connections in general will still be used in the "TV world" down the line… with everything moving towards more integrated networked appliances instead. E.g. streaming service "HDMI sticks" are now apps on the TV instead…

globular-toast4• 2 years ago

ARC and CEC are only necessary because of this stupid situation where TVs are like displays with shitty media centres built in. ARC is only a tiny bit more convenient anyway; it's not that hard to run an audio cable back from the TV to an audio receiver and you'll be hiding the cable anyway so it matters not the slightest what it looks like.

In 2002 there was XBMC (later renamed to Kodi). Microsoft even had Windows XP Media Centre Edition in 2005. At that time it was perfectly possible to set up a media centre that could do everything. No need for shitty TV remotes and CEC. You would use a much higher quality remote of your choice. Oh how far we've come in 20 years...

gond• 2 years ago

DP is still missing HDMI features like ARC and CEC, which are important for TVs.

ARC could also be considered as a bug, a hindrance, or both.

ARC and its various implementations would not exist if the HDMI Forum would not be so fanatically force copy protection on everything. The whole problem, or feature that ARC is or is not, would disappear with the reliance of protecting every stream. The alternative would be a full datastream, decoded, going back to the device in question. The prerequisite would be to remove the shitshow that HDCP is and allow full-blown HDMI-in and outputs, which is the exact opposite of what the Forum wants.

HDMI in its current implementation hinders technological progress in the audio segment by forcing everyone to output analogue signals after the decoding stage or not allow decoding at all.

Dagonfly• 2 years ago

That's assuming you're trying to avoid DSC. With DSC you can easily get 1440@240Hz even on DP1.4.

Most monitors don't ship with DP2.0, because it's just not necessary. All modern GPUs support DSC, so monitor OEMs take that free 3x bandwidth reduction.

Nonetheless, Nvidia shipping RTX 4000 without DP2.0 is baffling.

RegnisGnaw• 2 years ago

How do I switch? My TVs only have HDMI, should I spend another 5K+ to buy DP TVs?

vanderZwan• 2 years ago

Well, the TV is the consumer of the signal, and the problem here is on the side of the producer (say, your laptop). Another comment elsewhere pointed out that buying the right kind of DP-to-HDMI adapter works just fine:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41391015

eqvinox6• 2 years ago

While we're here, does anyone know why professional displays [e.g. https://www.usa.philips.com/c-p/27B1U7903_27/professional-mo... ] frequently have 2 HDMI ports and only 1½ DisplayPort? (½ for the Thunderbolt port) This feels like some kind of standard port combination… do the display driver ICs only have one DP port? Are they using TV silicon?

I know HDMI is used in some AV production setups, but that feels like a very small niche to justify having 2 HDMI ports on a display like this?

[I'd rather have 2 DP ports and only 1 HDMI… or no HDMI at all]

pella• 2 years ago

Article date: February 29, 2024

Related phoronix threads - 6 months ago - 394 points

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39543291

kristjank• 2 years ago

I really hope HDMI snags hit some critical mass and it gets reliquished to the dying TV/home theatre domain where it can rot into obscurity. DisplayPort has its own issues, but they're much smaller than the constant industry fuckups HDMI produces. It's Oracle: the interface.

langsoul-com• 2 years ago

Isn't amd in a pretty bad position with display related tech?

Hdmi rejected them, display port isn't ubiquitous enough, thunderbolt (usb c) is owned by Intel.

Longlius• 2 years ago

thunderbolt (usb c) is owned by Intel.

USB-C is distinct from Thunderbolt. And Thunderbolt itself got rolled into USB4 which is now an industry standard rather than one controlled by Intel.

Even so, Intel and AMD aren't so hostile to each other to avoid cross-licensing when it's mutually beneficial. A lot of the newest generation of AM5 motherboards actually include an Intel chipset for handling Thunderbolt/USB4.

roshankhan28• 2 years ago

with DP cable i can get 144 hz on my benq xl2411p. but with hdmi i can go max 90hz. i cant own 2 144hz display just because there is no way i can use two DP cables on my rtx 20270 super.

ThatPlayer4• 2 years ago

That's an issue with the monitor only supporting HDMI 1.4. A monitor that supports HDMI 2.0 would work with 144hz fine. I have the opposite issue where I run my 240hz monitor on HDMI 2.1 because it has more bandwidth than my RTX 4080's DisplayPort 1.4 ports.

It seems a common issue enough with that that model is specifically called out sometimes: https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/how-to-connect-to-a-...

wvh• 2 years ago

If possible, they should add a hook and individual download script like for DeCSS back in the day. Let them come at each of us individually for wanting to use the ports in our own hardware.

supermatt• 2 years ago

What exactly does this mean? Isn't it just a case that the driver wouldn't be HDMI-certified, or are they actively prevented from distributing the driver?

layer8• 2 years ago

My reading: AMD signed a contract with the HDMI Forum in order to get access to the HDMI specification and be allowed to create HDMI products (and use the HDMI trademark), which includes an NDA regarding the specification. An open-source driver would violate that NDA.

sylware• 2 years ago

Everybody knew that could happen with HDMI based on their legality setup.

And it did.

That said, those guys usually play a "back and forth" game on the long run... so stay tuned.

You should have an eye on MPEG too, because those are the same "type" of people (and ARM ISA is not far behind...)

Even if I despise big tech on nearly all fronts, sometimes we can agree, and this is AV1 and DisplayPort.

And this type of behaviour namely not having a DisplayPort port could be a perfect regulatory (anti-competitive) project for EU, like they did with apple...

sgjohnson2• 2 years ago

I feel like the only thing HDMI has going for itself is ARC.

DisplayPort is superior in every other way imaginable. Except for the fact that almost no TV supports it.

Low-end monitors also don't usually have them, but as far as computer monitors go, I'm not interested in the low-end ones.

As for TVs - just give me a dumb screen with ports. I'm going to attach Apple TV to it anyway.

xnyanta3• 2 years ago

So true, I picked up the Samsung G80SD "Smart Monitor" and the deciding factor was literally just that it supports eARC, allowing me to use my Sonos Beam soundbar with my computer and supporting compressed audio formats like Dolby Atmos.

To make things even worse, this monitor supports sending back the ARC audio over DisplayPort, but only in stereo. If I use HDMI between the monitor and the computer, I get all of audio channels.

nolok2• 2 years ago

HDMI is ruling because of momentum and ubiquity in the tv room.

No device output in DP, no device accepts it, so no pressure on device to accept/output it. I guess the license price is low enough.

On computers, it sort of evolved where DVI was, you get mort port, you get better feature set, it's just superior.

But in the non-tech market I think the "real" fight will end up being hdmi vs usb-c, both of them are evolving to the point where they feed everything ethernet included. HDMI has ARC and waayyyy simpler cable and port compatibility (one version to check), usb-c has power output and every single pocket device and laptop/tablet/...

sgjohnson2• 2 years ago

No device output in DP

Yeah, if we exclude basically every half decent GPU and ~70% of laptop USB-C ports in existence.

toast04• 2 years ago

But in the non-tech market I think the "real" fight will end up being hdmi vs usb-c, both of them are evolving to the point where they feed everything ethernet included.

HDMI ethernet and HDMI eArc use the same pins. eArc won, HDMI ethernet is pretty much dead.

bryanlarsen• 2 years ago

Except for the fact that almost no TV supports it.

So frustrating. I'm using a 42" LG OLED TV as a monitor right now. Very nice monitor at half the price of the same panel in a "real" monitor. I'm driving it with an AMD card at 60 Hz for exceedingly stupid reasons.

macNchz• 2 years ago

FWIW after reading though lots and lots of posts in the original bug report thread for this issue, I bought a Cable Matters “8K DisplayPort 1.4 to HDMI 2.1 Adapter” and it works perfectly to drive my Sony TV at 4K/120 from an AMD 6900XT on Ubuntu 24.04.

MPSimmons• 2 years ago

This occurred because in 2021 the HDMI Forum restricted public access to its specifications

Oh, okay. Fuck the HDMI forum, then.

anotherhue• 2 years ago

Submitted slightly earlier https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41386037

steelframe• 2 years ago

Cool. Then I suppose I'll buy my dumb DisplayPort screens from rando Chinese knockoff companies that siphon off R&D that suckers like Sony and Samsung fund.

piperswe2• 2 years ago

Does AMDGPU PRO (the proprietary AMD userland driver) support HDMI 2.1?

mass_and_energy• 2 years ago

Is there a compelling reason for HDMI to exist? Why can't we use display port in every case we currently use HDMI for?

HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

Related Stories