[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:0.109 / U:4.492 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site