linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gma500: Intel GMA500 staging driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:59:41 +0100
From:	Patrik Jakobsson <patrik.r.jakobsson@...il.com>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
CC:	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, greg@...ah.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gma500: Intel GMA500 staging driver

On 02/22/2011 04:40 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:17:46PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
>> This is an initial staging driver for the GMA500. It's been stripped out
>> of the PVR drivers and crunched together from various bits of code and
>> different kernels.
>>
>> Currently it's unaccelerated but still pretty snappy even compositing with
>> the frame buffer X server.
>>
>> Lots of work is needed to rework the ttm and bo interfaces from being
>> ripped out and then 2D acceleration wants putting back for framebuffer
>> and somehow eventually via DRM.

>> +++ b/drivers/staging/gma500/psb_intel_sdvo.c
> Does PSB really support SDVO? I thought by that period the only thing
> it'd be used for was plug-in SDVO cards, which doesn't seem so likely
> with PSB.
>
The Fit-PC2 needs SDVO for its DVI/HDMI output. The SDVO chip is likely 
put directly on the PCB.
I tried to write my own driver for the gma500 (called it i500) which had 
all the SDVO stuff in place,
but I never sorted out the TTM stuff so it's been gathering dust for 
quite some time now.
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/gma500/psb_ttm_fence.c b/drivers/staging/gma500/psb_ttm_fence.c
> This really looks like it's intended to be core TTM functionality, so it
> should probably go past dri-devel.
>
> This is definitely the best gma500 driver we've seen yet, but it seems
> like there's two directions it can go. If the intention for now is to
> provide a kernel-quality unaccelerated 2D driver then there's a *lot*
> more code that can just be ripped out. If we want the acceleration to
> work then there's an argument that we should be abstracting that into a
> more generic SGX layer that other drivers can make use of. Does omapfb
> have any acceleration? If so, is there anything we can build on there?
 From what I can see, omapfb doesn't have any acceleration,
and yes, it would be very nice to have a generic SGX layer.

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