Anyone have an idea how soon we should expect GPU support to be in mainline?
GPU and display controller were initially expected to have large amount of changes, but this turned out not to be the case.
Amount of changes between M1->M1Pro/Max/Ultra and M1Pro/Max/Ultra->M2 is similar.
Edit: I've directly observed these on my machine, and it doesn't look to be an isolated incident. There is a video in [2] below.
[0] https://discussions.apple.com/thread/253679057
[1] https://discussions.apple.com/thread/252777347
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/u486mi/macbook_pro_1...
[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/oldbb9/mba_m1_cursor_g...
[4] https://www.reddit.com/r/applehelp/comments/kfkuqi/is_there_...
[5] https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/r037h2/is_this_amount_...
[6] https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/mac-mini-m1-mouse-curso...
Never heard of these. Been using M1 for a year. I don’t think it’s worth taking seriously.
I had a choppy mouse at a certain point, but that was only with a bluetooth mouse. Bluetooth runs at a slower rate in any case, but I think it might have had to do with some interference.
The biggest change, IIRC, is that the M1 was based on the A12(?) but the M2 was based on the A14(?). So the CPU/GPU design was newer. They tweaked and improved other modules like the neural engine too.
So it wasn’t just clock speed, but to most end users it was just somewhat faster and more mature.
Nothing special/amazing/transformative.
That chip is also the reason for a lot of support emails I'm getting on Lunar (https://lunar.fyi/) because it seems to break DDC/CI and hardware brightness control stops working through cables and ports that use it.
[0] https://media.digikey.com/pdf/Data%20Sheets/MegaChips%20PDFs...
The flaw means that two malicious processes, already on the system, can potentially communicate without the OS being aware. Even though they already could through pipes, desktop icons, files, inter-process communication, screen grabbing each other, over the network, from a remote website, take your pick. Now, what are the odds of two malicious processes, being on a system, with a pre-agreed protocol for communication, going to need a weird processor bug to communicate over for? Absolutely nothing. It's not supposed to happen - but it's basically useless when you are twice-pwned already.
The other flaw that was found was that Pointer Authentication (PAC) could be defeated on the M1 with the PACMAN attack. However, PAC was actually an ARM standard added in ARMv8.4 that affects all ARMv8.4 implementers - the M1 just happens to be the most notable chip with that ARM version. Versions before ARMv8.4 didn't have PAC at all - so, even with that defeated, you aren't worse off than you were before ARMv8.4, so it's just a "sad, we tried, but oh well" thing from ARM's perspective.
