[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: New proposed DRM interface design
    Alan Cox wrote:

    >On Sul, 2004-09-05 at 23:11, Jon Smirl wrote:
    >>What is the advantage to continuing a development model where two
    >>groups of programmers work independently, with little coordination on
    >>two separate code bases trying to simultaneously control the same
    >>piece of hardware? This is a continuous source of problems. Why can't
    >>we fix the development model to stop this?
    >I don't see that as much of a problem. The mess arises from some simple
    >lacks in the objects in kernel and the methods required to co-ordinate.
    >Lots of drivers are written by a lot of people in the kernel and they
    >work just fine. The ext3 authors don't spend their lives co-ordinating
    >with SCSI driver authors, they just get the API right.

    Sorry, but I think that's (Possibly?) a really really bad & misleading
    example... Apples & Apples vs Chocolate & Milkshakes... The dual screen
    problem with DRM & fb is two drivers accessing (Sometimes) the same
    hardware. The ext3 vs SCSI is a filesystem, that sits on-top of a disk
    device that may just be SCSI.. Or IDE..

    The fs -> SCSI interface is a logical one.

    Unless you can have fb sitting on top of DRM of course... (I discount
    DRM on-top of fb, because of the D == Direct... No other reason :)...

    Does it make sens to have fb ontop of DRM at all? Anyone?


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.020 / U:16.256 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site