Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 06 Sep 2004 21:58:33 +0100 | From | Hamie <> | Subject | Re: 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?
regards Hamish.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |