Further expanded AMD HDMI 2.1 support is coming to Linux now with FRL and DSC

It is incredible that this development still relies on files exchanged over e-mail.
Even worse is that these mailinglists are publicly archived with full names and e-mail-adresses.
Why not keep that to those that subscribed and not let harvesters access them?
Where are the gitlabs and githubs and modern infrastructure? ;)

Quoting: tpauIt is incredible that this development still relies on files exchanged over e-mail.
Even worse is that these mailinglists are publicly archived with full names and e-mail-adresses.
Why not keep that to those that subscribed and not let harvesters access them?
Where are the gitlabs and githubs and modern infrastructure? ;)

If a process has been working for this long, why change it? Besides, emails are still a good way to leave paper trails in case anyone wants to go back to see what conversations have been going on during the development process. Using modern infrastructure doesn't guarantee that every conversation will be available forever because all of it can go away if no backup (or the backup got deleted) was done to preserve it in the event the repository or other modern tools ceased to exist.

I can't really find how they got passed thr HDMI Forum licensing?

Quoting: BumadarI can't really find how they got passed thr HDMI Forum licensing?

My guess: HDMI 2.2 will be the new "no license" situation. HDMI 2.1 has a data transfer rate of 4k @120Hz and some monitors already allow 4k @240Hz (which DisplayPort can handle btw). So there is a good argument for companies to implement HDMI 2.2 and pay for it (even if it is just for advertisement). I think they only want to get payed for the newest license. This way they allow older specs to be implemented, which strengthens their market position (better have it build in everywhere to be present everywhere than taking the last cents they can get).

A paper trail can still be there without leaking personal data like mailadresses and full names to spammers.
I also assume that this old style approach deters people from joining eventually.

On the actual topic.
Do we have most of the HDMI 2.1 spec covered by now or is there anything else missing?

Quoting: BumadarI can't really find how they got passed thr HDMI Forum licensing?

Most likely someone at HDMI Forum finally realized that an open source implementation is not the danger to their business model that they first thought. And this was true the entire time, just that they had to figure it out, their business model is selling a license to carry the HDMI2.1 label and that you have to do regardless of where your implementation comes from and regardless of if its open or closed.

Quoting: PlayingOnLinuxphone

Quoting: BumadarI can't really find how they got passed thr HDMI Forum licensing?

My guess: HDMI 2.2 will be the new "no license" situation. HDMI 2.1 has a data transfer rate of 4k @120Hz and some monitors already allow 4k @240Hz (which DisplayPort can handle btw). So there is a good argument for companies to implement HDMI 2.2 and pay for it (even if it is just for advertisement). I think they only want to get payed for the newest license. This way they allow older specs to be implemented, which strengthens their market position (better have it build in everywhere to be present everywhere than taking the last cents they can get).

Payment was never the issue though and AMD is and have been for years a HDMI licensee. There is nothing with these patches that would or could make HDMI Forum not get payed exactly what they where payed before.

Last edited by F.Ultra on 12 May 2026 at 10:36 pm UTC

When we Will able to set colorspace in wayland? I still have to rely on edid hacks to set the correct 4:4:4 RGB color mode.

Quoting: F.UltraPayment was never the issue though and AMD is and have been for years a HDMI licensee. There is nothing with these patches that would or could make HDMI Forum not get payed exactly what they where payed before.

I think the logic (from an artificial scarcity hoarding viewpoint) was that if they didn't keep the spec super secret, companies could just make stuff without giving them money. Which they didn't like the sound of. But, as you say, you still need to give them money (and AMD did) for the compliance tests and the sticker, and that's where the prestige is. "Proper" hardware companies will still give them money to remain "proper," and fly-by-night won't-conform-to-the-spec companies weren't going to give them money either way.

Quoting: F.UltraPayment was never the issue though and AMD is and have been for years a HDMI licensee.

What CatKiller said. From point of view of capitalists they lose control about their property and they fear some money lose due open source implementation. Is this point of view garbage? Probably. But I never said that their logic makes sense nor that I agree with.

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: F.UltraPayment was never the issue though and AMD is and have been for years a HDMI licensee. There is nothing with these patches that would or could make HDMI Forum not get payed exactly what they where payed before.

I think the logic (from an artificial scarcity hoarding viewpoint) was that if they didn't keep the spec super secret, companies could just make stuff without giving them money. Which they didn't like the sound of. But, as you say, you still need to give them money (and AMD did) for the compliance tests and the sticker, and that's where the prestige is. "Proper" hardware companies will still give them money to remain "proper," and fly-by-night won't-conform-to-the-spec companies weren't going to give them money either way.

But companies making stuff without giving them money would be breaking trademark law and thus open to be sued by HDMI Forum, aka the reason that you pay for the specs is not to get access to the specs but to be allowed to sell products labelled with HDMI. And the fee for the specs are minuscule, only $10k per year (or $5k for low volume manufacturers), the real money is the per sold item royalty (up to $0.2 for high volume and flat $1 for low volume) since that times millions of devices per year adds up quite significantly.

And fly-by-night would not be affected by open drivers since they already have the specs (they are ofc widely spread in China for free). But I guess that some of the members where afraid of that and others have now countered, we simply don't know who it was since all 80+ companies have voting rights (and their votes are not made public).

Last edited by F.Ultra on 13 May 2026 at 10:43 am UTC

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: F.UltraPayment was never the issue though and AMD is and have been for years a HDMI licensee. There is nothing with these patches that would or could make HDMI Forum not get payed exactly what they where payed before.

I think the logic (from an artificial scarcity hoarding viewpoint) was that if they didn't keep the spec super secret, companies could just make stuff without giving them money. Which they didn't like the sound of. But, as you say, you still need to give them money (and AMD did) for the compliance tests and the sticker, and that's where the prestige is. "Proper" hardware companies will still give them money to remain "proper," and fly-by-night won't-conform-to-the-spec companies weren't going to give them money either way.

But companies making stuff without giving them money would be breaking trademark law and thus open to be sued by HDMI Forum, aka the reason that you pay for the specs is not to get access to the specs but to be allowed to sell products labelled with HDMI. And the fee for the specs are minuscule, only $10k per year (or $5k for low volume manufacturers), the real money is the per sold item royalty (up to $0.2 for high volume and flat $1 for low volume) since that times millions of devices per year adds up quite significantly.

And fly-by-night would not be affected by open drivers since they already have the specs (they are ofc widely spread in China for free). But I guess that some of the members where afraid of that and others have now countered, we simply don't know who it was since all 80+ companies have voting rights (and their votes are not made public).

Trademark law is weak compared to what the HDMI forum wields to keep others from releasing HDMI compatible stuff.
I'm talking copyright, contract law and patent.

Quoting: F.UltraBut companies making stuff without giving them money would be breaking trademark law and thus open to be sued by HDMI Forum,

Only if you use their trademarks - the logo and the name. Otherwise you're in the clear on that front. Patents and contractual obligations are a different matter, obviously, but if you don't use someone's trademarks then you have no liability for using their trademarks.

aka the reason that you pay for the specs is not to get access to the specs

No, you also have to pay for access to the spec just as access to the spec. That's the particular part that they were sniffy about AMD putting in an open source implementation. And that was a change for 2.1 that was different to earlier versions, AFAIK.

And the fee for the specs are minuscule, only $10k per year (or $5k for low volume manufacturers), the real money is the per sold item royalty (up to $0.2 for high volume and flat $1 for low volume) since that times millions of devices per year adds up quite significantly.

Sure, and their fear was that people would crib the spec from AMD's driver, and make anonymous actually-compliant devices without paying the tithe.

And fly-by-night would not be affected by open drivers since they already have the specs (they are ofc widely spread in China for free). But I guess that some of the members where afraid of that and others have now countered, we simply don't know who it was since all 80+ companies have voting rights (and their votes are not made public).

For sure. Hey, you thought their position was silly, I thought their position was silly, device makers, consumers, journalists all thought their position was silly. Hopefully now they've also realised that their position was silly. The likely outcome from them holding their silly position was that DisplayPort and older versions of HDMI become more attractive.

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: F.UltraPayment was never the issue though and AMD is and have been for years a HDMI licensee. There is nothing with these patches that would or could make HDMI Forum not get payed exactly what they where payed before.

I think the logic (from an artificial scarcity hoarding viewpoint) was that if they didn't keep the spec super secret, companies could just make stuff without giving them money. Which they didn't like the sound of. But, as you say, you still need to give them money (and AMD did) for the compliance tests and the sticker, and that's where the prestige is. "Proper" hardware companies will still give them money to remain "proper," and fly-by-night won't-conform-to-the-spec companies weren't going to give them money either way.

But companies making stuff without giving them money would be breaking trademark law and thus open to be sued by HDMI Forum, aka the reason that you pay for the specs is not to get access to the specs but to be allowed to sell products labelled with HDMI. And the fee for the specs are minuscule, only $10k per year (or $5k for low volume manufacturers), the real money is the per sold item royalty (up to $0.2 for high volume and flat $1 for low volume) since that times millions of devices per year adds up quite significantly.

And fly-by-night would not be affected by open drivers since they already have the specs (they are ofc widely spread in China for free). But I guess that some of the members where afraid of that and others have now countered, we simply don't know who it was since all 80+ companies have voting rights (and their votes are not made public).

Trademark law is weak compared to what the HDMI forum wields to keep others from releasing HDMI compatible stuff.
I'm talking copyright, contract law and patent.

No it is only trademark, there is nothing to copyright (aka you releasing a HDMI product that is not licensed cannot breach copyright) and the patents in HDMI only covers things like how cables and connectors are constructed not the things that the driver implements. And trademark is not weak here since if you want to sell a cable the end user wants to know that it is HDMI compatible so you have to mark it as HDMI somewhere and the second you do without a license then you are breaching trademark.

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: F.UltraBut companies making stuff without giving them money would be breaking trademark law and thus open to be sued by HDMI Forum,

Only if you use their trademarks - the logo and the name. Otherwise you're in the clear on that front. Patents and contractual obligations are a different matter, obviously, but if you don't use someone's trademarks then you have no liability for using their trademarks.

Yes but how do you sell and market a HDMI product without saying that it is a HDMI product ;) so there is no way around breaking trademark here if you are not licensed. Simply trying to sell "video cable" will probably not get you customers, and that every single noname cable on AliExpress is clearly labeled as HDMI informs me that the low flyby firms agrees :)

Quoting: CatKillerNo, you also have to pay for access to the spec just as access to the spec. That's the particular part that they were sniffy about AMD putting in an open source implementation. And that was a change for 2.1 that was different to earlier versions, AFAIK.

What I meant was that you as a manufacturer are not really interested in the specs, you are interested in the rights to sell your stuff as HDMI-labelled. Aka the specs are just a means to get to the real end, nice to have but not mandatory. The open source alternative drives that where released just before this from a lone dev shows that access to specs isn't necessary at all, and perhaps that indeed was the signal that HDMI Forum needed to see to understand, who knows.

edit: but yes I agree that my problem is that I am trying to look at this rationally on what the harms and the non harms is in reality for HDMI Forum, which is not necessarily the same as them having the same understanding. Most of the members there probably don't even know what open source really is (I mean digging through the AMD sources to understand how the HDMI specs works is way way more labour intensive than simply sitting with a digital oscilloscope and do measurements on the actual pins.

Last edited by F.Ultra on 14 May 2026 at 2:13 am UTC