Freescale Linux BSP review

Matthew Garrett mjg59 at
Thu Dec 23 08:07:56 PST 2010

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:18:21AM -0600, Matt Sealey wrote:
> Ownership of the code is dependent on who licensed it. I do not think
> Linaro need be so concerned over opensourcing or reimplementing
> drivers. The fact that the kernel driver is open source as it is, and
> this is by far the most important part. The userspace library is
> closed because it is proprietary; and I think it is well outside
> Linaro's remit to lobby for opensourcing of proprietary code simply to
> meet an esoteric and needless demand for source code access (as it
> stands, you can get source code access by signing the usual plethora
> of NDAs with the appropriate vendor, as Genesi has done). It is my
> understanding that Freescale/AMD and Qualcomm maintain seperate forks
> of the driver and do not cooperate on development, and in any case,
> Linaro does not include Qualcomm anyway, therefore it is also to my
> understanding that this discussion is also beyond Linaro's remit.

Given that upstream policy is to refuse DRM components unless there's an 
open userspace consumer of the interface, whether or not this 
conversation has any purpose is entirely down to whether Linaro's kernel 
policy is to limit itself to upstreamable code or not. If Linaro's 
reference kernel is intended to include nothing but code that's on track 
to become mainline then asking whether there's any way these drivers can 
be merged is a useful question. If Linaro's reference kernel is intended 
to include whatever's necessary to get hardware working, 
upstream-suitable or otherwise, then there's not much point in worrying 
about it.

Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at

More information about the dri-devel mailing list