Re: starting with 2.7

[Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>]

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +1100, Dave Airlie wrote:
> Say theoretically ATI decide tomorrow:
> 1. GPL in kernel source code (ATI is based on the DRM so it isn't such
> a leap of faith as say NVIDIA doing it...)
> 2. clean it all up so that it follows every single kernel coding
> practice to the letter
> 3. submit it for inclusion into the kernel as a device driver,
> drivers/char/drm/fglrx.c
> 
> Now would you include it? we can't use the no-one is using it excuse,
> as people are using fglrx already and many have no choice, the driver
> would have no userspace applications other than the binary only 2D/3D
> drivers they supply for X... ATI would then benefit from the kernel
> development process for keeping the things up-to-date with respect to
> interfaces etc...

I think so, yes. We'd be able to fix kernelspace bugs in it, for
starters.

> In this way, people who are running on ppc etc would still not have or
> be any closer to 3D acceleration for their graphics cards, but ATI
> would have followed the rules as far as the kernel is concerned....

They'd certainly be closer in that userspace code is significantly
easier to emulate and/or reverse engineer.

> The main reason 3D graphics drivers are the big one here as of course
> we can't put OpenGL into the kernel, so it requires a split
> kernel/userspace solution, and one is of little use without the other,
> if the kernel one is GPL and userspace one is closed source how do
> people sit with it? (uneasy?)

If the userspace portion is using a standard API and not just using
the driver to open gaping holes in the kernel/user barrier, I see it
as a step forward.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.