---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Timothy Meade <zt.tmzt@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:38 PM Subject: Closed source userspace graphics drivers with an open source kernel component To: Saravana Kannan <skannan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, dri-devel <dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-arm-msm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jcrouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Saravana Kannan <skannan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Dave Airlie wrote: >> >> This is more about initial development stages. We maintain kernel >> API/ABI for all in-tree drivers, however before we put a driver into >> mainline, we usually need to redo the crazy interfaces that vendors >> have come up with. Like 32/64 alignment, passing userspace addresses >> into the kernel, passing phy addresses to userspace etc. If the >> userspace binary is closed that process becomes next to impossible. > > My 2 cents: > I think we should leave the onus of fixing the userspace to work with the sane kernel API with the entity trying to get their drivers into the kernel. I think it's a better approach (as in, more likelihood of getting device support) than saying, we will only allow fully open sourced kernel drivers. > > -Saravana > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Hello. I've been working with the developers on the htc-linux project and following the progress of Android on MSM devices closely for a few years. I've been excitied to see DRM/DRI replace PMEM and the Android specific interfaces be replaced with more Linux-like ones. The Xorg driver from Qualcomm uses this same interface for 2D and it's possible that Android will take the same approach, though it uses 3D and GLES as a type of abstraction layer for surfaceflinger. This allows for a closed 3D driver with an open command submission layer that is in itself not that different from the split for ATI devices using radeonhd. I say this because the alternative for these devices is a fully closed binary and secrecy surrounding the graphics layers that ensures that only the OS that ships with the device can ever really be used and preventing those non-coorporate developers as myself from utilising GPL code the way we want or even usuing are own cell phones (in this case). I would choose a fully open, X based OS even if that meant only having 2D drivers, but I know that Quic and others aren't going to develop just a (accelerated) 2D driver, not the kernel components or userspace but instead rely on the same GLES layer that Android uses, essentially making X and open environments a second class citizen on modern mobile hardware. I hope those making the decision will take this into consideration. -- Timothy Meade (tmzt on freenode) _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
