On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Thomas Hellström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave Airlie wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Thomas Hellström >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Dave, >>> >>> This process looks ok to me, >>> but I think some clarifications are needed: >>> >>> Dave Airlie wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Okay I've put some thoughts up at: >>>> http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/DRMProcess >>>> >>>> and I've pasted it in below this for discussion. >>>> >>>> some other points: >>>> >>>> a) People are pushing for a process change, we will have something >>>> change, however this isn't a who shouts loudest competition, so more >>>> than likely you'll end up compromising, deal with the fact that >>>> nirvana for you may be hell for others. >>>> >>>> b) BSD developers do exist now, giving out that they didn't exist in >>>> the past or aren't adding features is pointless. Would you seriously >>>> start developing features before >>>> getting the code caught up?. So live with the fact that we should help >>>> the BSD guys *if* its practical. So we shouldn't do anything major >>>> that alienates their further development. >>>> (personally I care little for BSD, the license or the OSes, however >>>> I'm attempting to be some way fair). >>>> >>>> c) We get testers from drm master, we get better testers using drm >>>> master for features than a separate kernel tree. We get better >>>> regression tests from getting stuff upstream. However upstreaming >>>> stuff to Linus is not how to find regressions, it helps but its >>>> suboptimal in that he will eventually ignore us if the regression rate >>>> gets too high. So upstreaming is great for features like GEM, however >>>> it would suck for something like vblank-rework. This appears to point >>>> at, upstream is great if you touch one driver and exist in your own >>>> world, however if you want interfaces that all drivers can use like >>>> vbl-rework you need to work somewhere else or carry two interfaces >>>> until everyone is ported. >>>> >>>> So lets see if we can improve this for everyone... >>>> >>>> Dave. >>>> >>>> >>>> DRM Development Process (Proposed) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ... >>> >>>> >>>> 1. All patches to be sent to the mailing list with S-O-B, no patches >>>> to be committed to master branch. Nothing goes upstream or into master >>>> without Signed-off-by and maintainers Signed-off-by. 2. Do not mix >>>> cleanup and developement ever. If you move a bunch of registers or >>>> code into a separate file, do just that in one patch. 3. Backwards >>>> compat patches in separate patches. So first patch should be >>>> upstreamable, backwards compat patches should be in sequence. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Let's say we rework a driver completely, including DDX, to support GEM / >>> TTM >>> or whatever. >>> The driver is, in effect, a "new" driver and there are no intermediate >>> versions of drm >>> that could be of interest really, since they wouldn't work with any of >>> the >>> user-space >>> clients. So no bisecting is possible. Would it be OK to treat such work >>> as a >>> new driver >>> and post it as a (URL to) single patch? >>> >> >> Yes I'd be happy with that, of course I'd also like the development to >> occur in the open. >> If someone else were to start working on something in the open that >> others were working on under contract or in secret, then I'd expect >> the contracted group to merge to the open stuff.... >> > > Yes, that sounds fair. I guess at least the very least should be a common > understanding with > the people actively working on the open stuff on what to keep and what not > to keep. > >> >>>> >>>> Upstream first policy >>>> >>>> This policy places a restriction on users of the drm, i.e. Mesa, DDX, >>>> X server. No upstream release should include code that hasn't been >>>> included in a Linux kernel release cycle. Upstream can use a >>>> --enable-experimental-kernel-api type flag but default build should >>>> never require any unreleased kernel/drm API to build or run. Distros >>>> should not enable experimental APIs in releases, unless they are >>>> willing to version their kernel and other components against each >>>> other and deal with the fallout of API changes. >>>> >>>> All userspace APIs need to be submitted to dri-devel and to the Linux >>>> kernel list, also all patches which need exports or use new non-drm >>>> kernel functionality should be reviewed by both lists. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Are driver-specific IOCTL interfaces included in this? >>> >> >> Yes, any userspace API, anything we need to support for ever and ever. >> > > That's really the point that this may or may not be the same thing. The old > drm model placed a > driver's user space interface under versioning, and any app using that > interface would need to > monitor the major version number to check for compatibility, although major > bumps were > strongly discouraged.
Major bumps once stuff went into the kernel weren't allowed at all. You'd need to fork the driver in any case. So we did this once or twice on drivers in devel trees like mach64. However upstream first policy should avoid this need. I'd also prefer to see getparam for new features instead of version checks. The linear version check sucks. Dave. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
