P96 RTG driver development for new hardware

[psxphill]

Just out of curiosity, is P96 the only available option to us ?

Obviously not, it's just the easiest option as it already exists.

And when SAGA is ready - will we even need P96?

You will still need something, however P96 may not be the easiest option at that point as it was designed for add on cards and not for mixed OCS/ECS/AGA/SAGA graphics.

[wawrzon]

Obviously not, it's just the easiest option as it already exists.

if you just need documentation to write drivers for it, perhaps.
but if is is supposed to go again into the full maintenance modus as thor suggests, it may become more difficult. for starters it would likely have to be made compilable with todays compilers, say gcc 4.x-5.x and so on..

[nicholas]

Where can this be found?

 Cybergraphx v3 and its driver development kit are both freely available, as is the CGXAGA driver for ECS/AGA screenmodes with source.  

http://aminet.net/package/driver/video/CyberGraphX3
http://aminet.net/package/dev/misc/CGraphX-DevKit
http://aminet.net/package/driver/video/CGX-AGA

[Trev]

Then don't buy it. Once again, not everything has to be free in this universe, even more so as some party is apparently putting money into it. Its *own* money. It's not morally wrong to buy something for money, you know?

Well, free as in beer is certainly a possibility. I asked nicely for a copy of the DDK about 11 years go (yikes!) and received one with the only stipulation being obfuscation of the driver interfaces behind a closed source shim. (But honestly, everything in m68k Amigaland has been decompiled, reverse engineered, and analyzed to death at this point. I'm surprised we even need a DDK.)

[psxphill]

if you just need documentation to write drivers for it, perhaps.

AFAICT the drivers exist, they are just trying to figure out the licensing issues.

but if is is supposed to go again into the full maintenance modus as thor suggests, it may become more difficult. for starters it would likely have to be made compilable with todays compilers, say gcc 4.x-5.x and so on..

Making aros graphics.library useful on 68k hardware is also going to be difficult, nobody has bothered so far anyway. I wasn't aware that anyone was using modern gcc for 68k either and SAS/C runs in vamos.

[mikej]

Cybergraphx v3 and its driver development kit are both freely available, as is the CGXAGA driver for ECS/AGA screenmodes with source.  

http://aminet.net/package/driver/video/CyberGraphX3
http://aminet.net/package/dev/misc/CGraphX-DevKit
http://aminet.net/package/driver/video/CGX-AGA

Thanks Nicholas.
The p96 driver is fully working, no need for the DDK.
Could Cybergraphx do a similar job on this new hardware, sans licensing issues?
/MikeJ

[nicholas]

Thanks Nicholas.
The p96 driver is fully working, no need for the DDK.
Could Cybergraphx do a similar job on this new hardware, sans licensing issues?
/MikeJ

As far as I'm aware developers don't have to pay any licence fee to develop a CGX driver.

The end user is theoretically supposed to pay for CGX if they like using it but the free trial is fully functional with no time limit and CGX3 has been long abandoned for CGX5 which is MorphOS exclusive.

Might be worth contacting Frank Mariak from the MorphOS Team for further clarification.

[mikej]

Might be worth contacting Frank Mariak from the MorphOS Team for further clarification.

Will do, thanks.

[JimDrew]

Cybergraphx v3 and its driver development kit are both freely available, as is the CGXAGA driver for ECS/AGA screenmodes with source.  

http://aminet.net/package/driver/video/CyberGraphX3
http://aminet.net/package/dev/misc/CGraphX-DevKit
http://aminet.net/package/driver/video/CGX-AGA

What I need is information (or an example) for creating a CLDriver.  That info is not contained in these archives.  This is the same situation as the Picasso96 card driver.  We have a skeleton driver that works, but it is missing a LOT of the hooks for accelerating functions.  If there is source code to an actual card driver (CLDriver in the case of CyberGraphics), that would be great!

[kolla]

The idea is really to keep the P96 license model untouched, in the same way Alex and Tobias originally considered it. The user gets P96 for free, but if you're developing a hardware that depends on a P96 driver, you have to license it - yes (gosh!) for money, for a sum that still has to be discussed. The money does not go into my pocket, or into the pockets of Apollo. But somebody has to keep care of the software, and somebody has to pay the party.

How is this at all relevant for MIST, FPGA Arcade and other hardware that has no dependance on P96? Remember, it is only when using Amiga softcores that it even becomes relevant to *maybe* use RTG.

Or to put it more correctly - the license model of P96 is stupid.

[kolla]

You will still need something, however P96 may not be the easiest option at that point as it was designed for add on cards and not for mixed OCS/ECS/AGA/SAGA graphics.

In my view, CyberGraphX is and was way better. P96 only became "standard" when it was chosen to be included with OS3.5 or 3.9 (I cannot remember). CyberGraphX was firmly planted in what became "the blue camp", whereas P96 became part of the hack&patch mess we currently know as "the red camp".

[kolla]

As far as I'm aware developers don't have to pay any licence fee to develop a CGX driver.

The only viable business model.

The end user is theoretically supposed to pay for CGX if they like using it but the free trial is fully functional with no time limit and CGX3 has been long abandoned for CGX5 which is MorphOS exclusive.

Also, CyberGraphX was something _anyone_ could buy, not just "manufacturers". I have personally bought CyberGraphX 4 at least twice, as a user. P96 is only something I have only really used with UAE and Mediator, though I have also tried it on various other hardware (CV64, PicassoIV... stuff I have mostly gotten rid of).

[guest11527]

Or to put it more correctly - the license model of P96 is stupid.

Ok, what is the license model or business model you would put forward? Let the tax payer pay for the work on the driver?  

You can either let the users pay for something (and given the "business mentality" I get here, I would expect it would be sold once, then copied forever) or you can get the hardware vendors to pay for it, which means that you let at least someone pay that generates some income from the work.

In the end, who will pay the developers for P96? The state? Social welfare?

Sorry, but I've other plans with my life. If you want P96 to be maintained, *somebody* has to pay for it *somehow*. I consider it fair enough if someone in the market chain does that, and not the general public.

[guest11527]

Also, CyberGraphX was something _anyone_ could buy, not just "manufacturers".

Could you please stop the bull%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!? Ok, here's a little one-Oh-one of the market:

The customer pays X+Y euro/dollar to the manufacturer. The manufacturer pays Y euro for the license.

Question: Where does X+Y come from and who bought the license?

Ok, I get it: No matter what I do, I do it wrong. If I give users the opportunity to get *some* drivers for some boards for free I'm bad because I don't give them the opportunity to pay for my software. If I let users pay for the software in first place, I'm damned because I'm using an evil closed source model and rip off the users for worthless software.

Is that approximately how your thinking goes?

Now, if everything is for free, and the user gets the software for free, and the manufacturer gives the hardware for free, and the developer gives the driver for free, do I get my lunch for free as well?

Or do I send the bill to Norway and will you pay for it?

Kolla, with all necessary respect: Don't you get how stupid this is?

[mikej]

I'm keeping my head down here, but :

Or do I send the bill to Norway and will you pay for it?

Maybe we in the Nordic countries can have a whip-round and buy it. Actually, not going to the pub here once would probably pay for it.

On a serious note however, I would question the "If you want P96 to be maintained" statement. Actually, for me it works great as is - admittedly using the legacy OS it was designed for.

/Mike

[Niding]

@Thomas

Even if its for free, people will complain its not updated/maintained

So you are right, you cant win!