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]

Message-ID: <20110224000155.GA32282@kroah.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:01:55 -0800
From:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:	Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gma500: Intel GMA500 staging driver

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:51:04AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com> 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.
> >
> > There is no support for the parts without open source userspace (video
> > accelerators, 3D) as per kernel policy.
> >
> > I'm not a DRM expert so if there is anyone with a GMA500 who actually knows
> > something about DRI internals then help would be most welcome.
> >
> 
> 
> Okay I'm okay with this going into staging but we should work out a
> plan for it going forward.

Good as I just added it to the staging-next tree a few hours ago :)

> I don't have any poulsbo hw but if some were to appear I could
> probably expend effort on this.
> 
> So where do we want to go my opinion is
> 
> a) remove all userspace interfaces and simplify ttm memory management usage.
> b) add support to hook this up to the dumb ioctl so we can do trivial
> generic front buffer allocation, so then a libkms + dumb kms
> modesetting driver can work on it.
> c) figure out how to add interface for acceleration users. Whether TTM
> fence interfaces are required etc.

That all sounds reasonable to me.  Patches now gladly accepted.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/