Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Developers Still Reject NVIDIA Using DMA-BUF

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • johnc
    replied
    Originally posted by asdx
    Lol, optimus support in Linux will work out of the box with nouveau, intel, radeon, etc, since they are already using (?) or can use DMA-BUF/PRIME, while the blob will be left with crappy/hacky bumblebee crap.

    Nvidia FAIL.
    Yup. And you'll be able to play 2D Solitaire with it.

    Nouveau FTW!

    Leave a comment:


  • entropy
    replied
    Originally posted by johnc View Post
    I don't think Optimus is their primary intention with this. I think this is more about Tegra and Maxwell.
    Well, could be. I was too focused on Optimus.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnc
    replied
    Originally posted by entropy View Post
    What I don't get, how would that allow to implement Optimus(TM) between an intel IGP and an Nvidia GPU?
    I don't think Optimus is their primary intention with this. I think this is more about Tegra and Maxwell.

    Leave a comment:


  • calubi
    replied
    What you have to remember is that NVIDIA is a business. The binary blob serves the needs of the commercial users who buy expensive hardware for Linux (read: HPC cluster users on enterprise linux distros) just fine, so where is the incentive to prioritize open-source drivers on Linux? Why does the lack of open-source support have to be a conspiracy against open-source instead of simply a lack of demand from commercial clients that pay the bills?

    I just have to ask, why go on for 18 pages with the same arguments? I would love to see more open support as much as the next person, but this thread is just getting ridiculous. This thread is longer than most technical discussions about important Linux kernel subsystems! If you don't like NVIDIA's policies, then don't buy their hardware.

    Leave a comment:


  • entropy
    replied
    Originally posted by johnc View Post
    They will just do a "clean-room reimplementation" of the DMA buffer sharing mechanism they need, then everyone here will biitch that NVIDIA isn't using the common kernel code.

    And TI will have their version... and Qualcomm... and Samsung... etc.
    What I don't get, how would that allow to implement Optimus(TM) between an intel IGP and an Nvidia GPU?

    Leave a comment:


  • johnc
    replied
    Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    Nvidia can do a clean-room reimplementation of the Linux kernel, using the same API.
    They will just do a "clean-room reimplementation" of the DMA buffer sharing mechanism they need, then everyone here will biitch that NVIDIA isn't using the common kernel code.

    And TI will have their version... and Qualcomm... and Samsung... etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • pingufunkybeat
    replied
    Originally posted by asdx
    What about firmware blobs the kernel is shipping with? Isn't that illegal?
    They don't link against the Linux kernel, or run on the same hardware.

    Leave a comment:


  • pingufunkybeat
    replied
    Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
    It doesn't matter what Alan Cox wants, courts have already stated that APIs are not covered by copyright or have you already forgotten the Oracle v. Google case where Java's API (gpl 2 same as the kernel, mind you) lost to Android?
    Correct.

    Google did a clean-room reimplementation of Java Virtual Machine, using the same API.

    Nvidia can do a clean-room reimplementation of the Linux kernel, using the same API.

    What they can't do is link proprietary code against GPL code. Google did not do this, they wrote their own code.

    Leave a comment:


  • yogi_berra
    replied
    Originally posted by phoronix View Post
    So while many Linux desktop users are quick to bash NVIDIA over their lack of proper Optimus support, right now they are also being forced down by the Linux kernel developers not wanting to allow non-GPL drivers to use this unified buffer sharing infrastructure and reducing driver interoperability.
    It doesn't matter what Alan Cox wants, courts have already stated that APIs are not covered by copyright or have you already forgotten the Oracle v. Google case where Java's API (gpl 2 same as the kernel, mind you) lost to Android?

    Leave a comment:


  • pingufunkybeat
    replied
    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
    I don't buy any of your arguments. With that logic, the kernel should not provide any GPL exceptions at all, so that you wouldn't be able to run GPL incompatible software on it. That way, userspace software vendors would open source their products. Yeah, I can see *that* one working.

    No. The kernel is a required, low level component of the OS. Just like the GPL itself provides a built-in exception for using low-level proprietary OS components with GPL software without resulting in a GPL violation, so should the kernel do the reverse. The NVidia driver is a driver, and thus cannot work reliably outside kernel space. Forbidding them from using kernel interfaces is immoral. Why is it OK that I can run a GPL app on Windows, which links against Microsoft's C library, but I can't have a proprietary driver making use of an interface of a GPL kernel?
    You are extremely confused.

    1) You cannot put GPL software into the Microsoft Windows kernel. It's illegal. You can't put proprietary software into Linux either. It's also illegal.

    2) You can run any software using Microsoft's libc. You can run any software using glibc. Both are equally legal.

    3) There is nothing the kernel devs can do. They can NOT let Nvidia put their stuff in the kernel. The license prohibits it. They do not have the ability (or desire, but that's secondary) to change the license. Even if everyone on lkml agreed they wanted to, THEY CANNOT.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X