[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: New proposed DRM interface design
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 01:51:24AM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>Then drm_core would always be bundled with the OS.
>>>Is there any real advantage to spliting core/library and creating three
>>>interface compatibily problems?
>>Yes we only have one binary interface, between the core and module, this
>>interface is minimal, so AGP won't go in it... *ALL* the core does is deal
>>with the addition/removal of modules, the idea being that the interface is
>>very minor and new features won't change it...
> 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.

But regular users don't tend to pull down new scsi or ata drivers in the same
way that they do graphics drivers. Hence the concern of many drm developers
to avoid introducing new failure modes in this process.

People who'd never dream of upgrading their kernel have acquired the habit of
pulling down up-to-date video drivers on a weekly or monthly basis. So, for
sanity's sake, the DRI/DRM has been in the business of minimizing exposed
interfaces, and for my money, should continue to be in that business.

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:0.102 / U:2.604 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site