4 ms·

Does anyone understand how HDMI 2.1 support is now no problem? I remember that 2.1 support in AMD's open source driver was blocked by the HDMI forum, but I have

by mort96 2mo ago

Does anyone understand how HDMI 2.1 support is now no problem? I remember that 2.1 support in AMD's open source driver was blocked by the HDMI forum, but I haven't heard any news about them unblocking it. What changed?

lashkari 2mo ago
It doesn't give any specifics about what changed on the HDMI Forum side, but this article [0] from June indicates that Valve worked closely with AMD to get it pushed through prior to the release of the Steam Machine (which supports HDMI 2.1 VRR). [0] https://www.digitalfoundry.net/news/2026/06/valves-hdmi-2-1-saga-is-fully-resolved-with-a-final-frl-update-to-come-for-full-4k-240hz-support https://www.digitalfoundry.net/news/2026/06/valves-hdmi-2-1-...
seanw444 2mo ago
As far as I can recall: some internal implementation documentation leaked which made the legal position tougher for them somehow to protect it as proprietary (it made sense when I heard it explained, but now I feel like I'm missing an important detail to that), and then Valve had some talks with the HDMI Forum to convince them to let it go, presumably so they could have such support integrated into Linux for their hardware (Deck, Machine, Frame, etc). So now the HDMI Forum just doesn't really care anymore I guess.
- gary_0 2mo ago
  IIRC, a non-AMD contributor was working on adding HDMI 2.1 support to Linux's AMD driver, and then AMD managed to get the HDMI Forum to see that their position was moot and was making things very awkward for AMD.
  - mort96 2mo ago
    Oh this makes sense! Obviously, it can't be illegal for a non-forum-member to add HDMI support; it's just an HDMI forum policy after all, not law. That's certainly the link I was missing for this to make sense.
    - adgjlsfhk1 2mo ago
      presumably someone at Valve said "either you do this or we will pay an open source contributor 100k a year to reimplement every spec you make for the rest of time"
      - seanw444 2mo ago
        I actually like that reality better
    - saghm 2mo ago
      It's not like the policy ever made much sense to begin with. Hard to try to keep track of what a rationale might be enough to convince people who are already being unreasonable!
dayofthedaleks 2mo ago
[flagged]
- calgoo 2mo ago
  Only if an AI does it, so make sure the vibe code the driver
- MobiusHorizons 2mo ago
  what even is the alleged crime? If there was any protected IP they would be able to use the courts to sue. But that isn't happening, which suggests they know they don't have grounds. Am I missing something? Patents seem to be very much still grounds for lawsuits (even relatively baseless patents)
- SEJeff 2mo ago
  Happily upvoting you for agreeing on principal with me. I shall likely join the flogging as a result. I’m sure it will hurt my 11k internet point account.
  - encom 2mo ago
    “Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?” -- Galatians 4:16
mxmilkiib 2mo ago
8K still not working properly https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-7.3-More-AMDGPU https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-7.3-More-AMDGPU
- badgersnake 2mo ago
  I hope they fix it so both of the 8k monitor users can get their displays working soon.
  - Maken 2mo ago
    They can already, with DisplayPort.
elabajaba 2mo ago
I've seen some people say that since HDMI 2.2 recently released the HDMI forum doesn't care as much about "protecting" 2.1 anymore. If FOSS drivers support HDMI 2.2 when devices start shipping with HDMI 2.2 ports then this'll be disproven, but the HDMI forum held off on allowing AMD to implement 2.1 support in their Linux drivers for years and only relented when they released HDMI 2.2. Valve with the Gabecube probably didn't have much to do with it considering how low volume it is.
Brian_K_White 2mo ago
I just assumed they could tell that the world was getting close to just switching to DP if they kept making hdmi inconvenient, so the choice is be convenient or be irrelevant. I don't mean that specifically the linux kernel mattered so much to them, but in general for consumers (product makers) all up and down the line.

by mort96 2mo ago

lashkari 2mo ago

It doesn't give any specifics about what changed on the HDMI Forum side, but this article [0] from June indicates that Valve worked closely with AMD to get it pushed through prior to the release of the Steam Machine (which supports HDMI 2.1 VRR). [0] https://www.digitalfoundry.net/news/2026/06/valves-hdmi-2-1-saga-is-fully-resolved-with-a-final-frl-update-to-come-for-full-4k-240hz-support https://www.digitalfoundry.net/news/2026/06/valves-hdmi-2-1-...

seanw444 2mo ago

As far as I can recall: some internal implementation documentation leaked which made the legal position tougher for them somehow to protect it as proprietary (it made sense when I heard it explained, but now I feel like I'm missing an important detail to that), and then Valve had some talks with the HDMI Forum to convince them to let it go, presumably so they could have such support integrated into Linux for their hardware (Deck, Machine, Frame, etc). So now the HDMI Forum just doesn't really care anymore I guess.

gary_0 2mo ago
IIRC, a non-AMD contributor was working on adding HDMI 2.1 support to Linux's AMD driver, and then AMD managed to get the HDMI Forum to see that their position was moot and was making things very awkward for AMD.
- mort96 2mo ago
  Oh this makes sense! Obviously, it can't be illegal for a non-forum-member to add HDMI support; it's just an HDMI forum policy after all, not law. That's certainly the link I was missing for this to make sense.
  - adgjlsfhk1 2mo ago
    presumably someone at Valve said "either you do this or we will pay an open source contributor 100k a year to reimplement every spec you make for the rest of time"
    - seanw444 2mo ago
      I actually like that reality better
  - saghm 2mo ago
    It's not like the policy ever made much sense to begin with. Hard to try to keep track of what a rationale might be enough to convince people who are already being unreasonable!

dayofthedaleks 2mo ago

[flagged]

calgoo 2mo ago
Only if an AI does it, so make sure the vibe code the driver
MobiusHorizons 2mo ago
what even is the alleged crime? If there was any protected IP they would be able to use the courts to sue. But that isn't happening, which suggests they know they don't have grounds. Am I missing something? Patents seem to be very much still grounds for lawsuits (even relatively baseless patents)
SEJeff 2mo ago
Happily upvoting you for agreeing on principal with me. I shall likely join the flogging as a result. I’m sure it will hurt my 11k internet point account.
- encom 2mo ago
  “Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?” -- Galatians 4:16

mxmilkiib 2mo ago

8K still not working properly https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-7.3-More-AMDGPU https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-7.3-More-AMDGPU

badgersnake 2mo ago
I hope they fix it so both of the 8k monitor users can get their displays working soon.
- Maken 2mo ago
  They can already, with DisplayPort.

elabajaba 2mo ago

I've seen some people say that since HDMI 2.2 recently released the HDMI forum doesn't care as much about "protecting" 2.1 anymore. If FOSS drivers support HDMI 2.2 when devices start shipping with HDMI 2.2 ports then this'll be disproven, but the HDMI forum held off on allowing AMD to implement 2.1 support in their Linux drivers for years and only relented when they released HDMI 2.2. Valve with the Gabecube probably didn't have much to do with it considering how low volume it is.

Brian_K_White 2mo ago

I just assumed they could tell that the world was getting close to just switching to DP if they kept making hdmi inconvenient, so the choice is be convenient or be irrelevant. I don't mean that specifically the linux kernel mattered so much to them, but in general for consumers (product makers) all up and down the line.