Re: New proposed DRM interface design

[Keith Whitwell]

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 10:45:33AM +0100, Keith Whitwell 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> Actually regulat users do.  And they do by pulling an uptodate kernel or
> using a vendor kernel with backports.  This model would work for video drivers
> aswell.

Sure, explain to me how I should upgrade my RH-9 system to work on my new i915?

I'm not a big fan of the DRM code either, it's ironic that I'm in a position 
where I'm defending it.  Thanks to the cleanup work Dave is doing though it is 
improving after a long period of neglect.

However, introducing a new binary interface isn't going to magically transform 
a fairly neglected codebase into a sparkly new one.  All I can really see it 
doing is saving a few K of memory in the hetrogenous dual head case.  Oh, and 
introducing a new failure mode to be debugged at a distance.

Keith
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/