Closed source userspace graphics drivers with an open source kernel component

[Timothy Meade]

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Saravana Kannan <skannan at codeaurora.org>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 at vger.kernel.org
> 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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20100701/5ac429a2/attachment-0001.html>