No, I'm not interested in reverse engineering a piece of hardware like this. But I'd like to know exactly what credentials you hold that allow you to think that reverse engineering a modern GPU could not be "complex." Because from where I stand I have yet to see anyone release any reversed drivers for any of the 3D accelerators nVidia or ATi have made for the past several years.
Sorry, but I cannot give you even scent of hint 'what's my credentials'. It's strictly forbidden and I'm ony a corporate ant... In other words - too afraid to be trampled by legal depratment.
Anyways - why do you care ? If task will be too hard - no harm, no foul, and nobody the wiser. If it succeeds - everybody (interested) might benefit from it.
"Whatever you like"? Yeah, if the hardware supports it. Most of your suggestions to generalize the shaders are pretty silly given that there are only two shaders and they're not even proper VFPUs. The raw computational power is very limited compared to any desktop graphics cards released in the past 4+ years. Any hard coded features that are present in silicon but are not in OpenGL ES 2.0 will surely be exposed in extensions. I can't imagine that ImgTech wouldn't want anyone to be able to use them.
Yup, but we're not talking about desktop graphics. And if you download OGL ES 2.0 Emulator from PowerVR Insider SDK you will not see them geometry shader extension... (even if your HW has it).
Basics for an OpenGL ES implementation - don't you think it'd be much easier to do that on a platform that already has open source specifications, or even better, already has open source OpenGL drivers?
Yes, it's easier.
Besides, you said you want to open the raw hardware directly, not write OpenGL ES drivers.
Yup, I want to create API that would allow to access HW directly. But maybe somebody else will use it to write open-source driver. Sadly I cannot participate in this effort, because I'm writing graphics JIT compilers in my current job and it would be collision of interests.
Learning a thing or two? What is there to learn for someone who already doesn't consider the process complex??
I don't intend to learn the process. I know the process. I'm intend to use (mundane, and not very complex) process to learn how to program this very nice piece of HW.
And - simple things are the most interesting ones. (That's ZEN for 'ya).
Thanks for taking what I said completely out of context to make a pithy (but generally inaccurate) proverb out of it. Generally it helps to have a good reason to go forward in doing something, rather than do it to prove lack of a reason.
So - it's obvious now, that English is not my first language, huh ?
But joking aside. If you don't like my reason, if you think that I 'prove lack of reason' - you're entitled to.
But maan, I just don't care.
I'm sure there are a lot of other potential new things to be learned still available >_>
I've always wanted to learn to play sax...
Wow, okay, if your reasoning held water then hardware specifications would be made open all the time (when they almost never are). No, the competition does not have tools to get low level information in the way you propose, but even if they did, I'm sure there are chip developers in China who would love to ripoff a GPU design without having to go through that kind of hassle.
I just want to determine behavioral specification... It has nothing to do with GPU design.
I'm fairly relaxed, tongue-in-cheek person, and make jokes from everything (primarily myself). I know that it can hard to take on some more 'intense' individuals. But so be it.
The most intriguing part is why developer like you (or maybe this(link)
is not yours ) would want to discourage me from writing low-level API to access fairly powerful GFX chip on platform we both like...
Anyway, THX for the input Exophase
: there was rather heavy freudian slip... edited-out