Re: New proposed DRM interface design

[Hamie]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/