Re: New proposed DRM interface design

Christoph Hellwig
2004-09-04T09:48:21Z

On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 10:43:39AM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >
> > Umm, the Linux kernel isn't about minimizing interfaces. We don't link a
> > copy of scsi helpers into each scsi driver either, or libata into each sata
> > driver.
>
> true but the DRM isn't only about the Linux kernel, the DRM is a lowlevel
> component of a much larger system, of which the DRM just has to reside in
> the kernel,

And what makes this different?

> While I agree the perfcet solution is to introduce another binary
> interface, but no-one on the dri-devel list is willing to dedicate most of
> their time for the next age answering questions like "well I upgraded my
> r200 driver, and my mga stopped working, and the ATI binary driver killed
> my dog when I changed something else",

Just upgrade all of drm. You don't uopgrade a single drm driver either.
Or introduce a DRM_VERSION macro ala KERNEL_VERSION. But best thing is
really to keep the mast copy of drm in the latest kernel and let vendors
backport if nessecary.

> Ian has pointed this out on the
> dri-devel list as a major issue and to be honest he is not alone in his
> worries, if make the kernel responsible for the registration/de-reg only
> then build everything else in the drivers, we don't have to worry about
> someone adding a line to the middle of a structure and breaking the
> modules from somewhere else.. not many people have two different graphics
> cards and I'd rather inconvience them than increase support burden..

I think you need to start to play the kernel game if you want your code
in the kernel. I know X has this strange idea of beeing useful mostly to
make propritary vendors their life easier, but in kernel lands we thing
differently.