> I believe that the developers and maintainers of dma-buf have provided
> the needed signoff, both in person and in this thread. If there are any
> objections from that group, I'm happy to discuss any changes necessary to get
> this merged.
You need the permission of the owners of all the depend
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:57:15PM -0700, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Wed October 10 2012 23:02:06 Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
> > > Robert Morell wrote:
> > >
> > >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an i
Em Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:47:15 -0500
Rob Clark escreveu:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> wrote:
> > Em Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:20:12 +0200
> > Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> >
> >> > my understaning is
> >> > that the drivers/media/ authors should also ack with this licensing
> >
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
wrote:
> Em Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:20:12 +0200
> Hans Verkuil escreveu:
>
>> > my understaning is
>> > that the drivers/media/ authors should also ack with this licensing
>> > (possible) change. I am one of the main contributors there. Alan also
Em Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:20:12 +0200
Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> > my understaning is
> > that the drivers/media/ authors should also ack with this licensing
> > (possible) change. I am one of the main contributors there. Alan also has
> > copyrights there, and at other parts of the Linux Kernel, inc
Hi Hans,
On Thursday 11 October 2012 13:36:45 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Thu 11 October 2012 13:34:07 Alan Cox wrote:
> > > The whole purpose of this API is to let DRM and V4L drivers share
> > > buffers for zero-copy pipelines. Unfortunately it is a fact that
> > > several popular DRM drivers are c
On Thu 11 October 2012 13:36:45 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Thu 11 October 2012 13:34:07 Alan Cox wrote:
> > > The whole purpose of this API is to let DRM and V4L drivers share buffers
> > > for
> > > zero-copy pipelines. Unfortunately it is a fact that several popular DRM
> > > drivers
> > > are cl
On Thu 11 October 2012 13:34:07 Alan Cox wrote:
> > The whole purpose of this API is to let DRM and V4L drivers share buffers
> > for
> > zero-copy pipelines. Unfortunately it is a fact that several popular DRM
> > drivers
> > are closed source. So we have a choice between keeping the export symb
> > So, developers implicitly or explicitly copied in this thread that might be
> > considering the usage of dmabuf on proprietary drivers should consider
> > this email as a formal notification of my viewpoint: e. g. that I consider
> > any attempt of using DMABUF or media core/drivers together wi
> The whole purpose of this API is to let DRM and V4L drivers share buffers for
> zero-copy pipelines. Unfortunately it is a fact that several popular DRM
> drivers
> are closed source. So we have a choice between keeping the export symbols GPL
> and forcing those closed-source drivers to make the
> As long as dmabuf uses EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL that is definitely correct. Does your
> statement also hold if dmabuf would use EXPORT_SYMBOL? (Just asking)
Yes. The GPL talks about derivative works (as does copyright law).
Alan
___
dri-devel mailing list
dr
Op 11-10-12 09:51, Hans Verkuil schreef:
>>> my understaning is
>>> that the drivers/media/ authors should also ack with this licensing
>>> (possible) change. I am one of the main contributors there. Alan also has
>>> copyrights there, and at other parts of the Linux Kernel, including the
>>> dri
On Thu 11 October 2012 09:20:12 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Thu October 11 2012 03:11:19 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:22:34 +1000
> > Dave Airlie escreveu:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Alan Cox
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
> > > >
On Thu October 11 2012 03:11:19 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:22:34 +1000
> Dave Airlie escreveu:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
> > > Robert Morell wrote:
> > >
> > >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be u
On Wed October 10 2012 23:02:06 Rob Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
> > Robert Morell wrote:
> >
> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
> >> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-
Em Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:22:34 +1000
Dave Airlie escreveu:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
> > Robert Morell wrote:
> >
> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
> >> issue, and not really an interface".
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
>> > Robert Morell wrote:
>> >
>> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
>> >> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
>> >> explicitly inte
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
> Robert Morell wrote:
>
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
>> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
>> explicitly intended as an interface
Em Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
Robert Morell escreveu:
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
> explicitly intended as an interface between modules/drivers, so it
> should use EXPORT_SYMB
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
> Robert Morell wrote:
>
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
>> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
>> explicitly intended as an interface
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
Robert Morell wrote:
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
> explicitly intended as an interface between modules/drivers, so it
> should use EXPORT_SYMBOL
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Robert Morell wrote:
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
> explicitly intended as an interface between modules/drivers, so it
> should use EXPORT_SYMBOL ins
Em 25-01-2012 11:46, Mauro Carvalho Chehab escreveu:
> Em 25-01-2012 10:30, Alan Cox escreveu:
>>> Technically speaking, is there no way that the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPLed
>>> symbols can be used by the binary blobs, possibly with an open-sourced
>>> shim which provides the buffer-sharing interface to th
Em 25-01-2012 10:30, Alan Cox escreveu:
>> Technically speaking, is there no way that the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPLed
>> symbols can be used by the binary blobs, possibly with an open-sourced
>> shim which provides the buffer-sharing interface to the binary blobs?
>> Are there any reasons to not consider t
> Technically speaking, is there no way that the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPLed
> symbols can be used by the binary blobs, possibly with an open-sourced
> shim which provides the buffer-sharing interface to the binary blobs?
> Are there any reasons to not consider this approach?
The GPL requires all the code
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:04:57AM -0800, Robert Morell wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 01:10:04AM -0800, Semwal, Sumit wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Robert Morell wrote:
>> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:04:57AM -0800, Robert Morell wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 01:10:04AM -0800, Semwal, Sumit wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Robert Morell wrote:
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
> > > issue, and not really an in
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 01:10:04AM -0800, Semwal, Sumit wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Robert Morell wrote:
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
> > issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
> > explicitly intended as an
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 10:04:57AM -0800, Robert Morell wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 01:10:04AM -0800, Semwal, Sumit wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Robert Morell wrote:
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
> > > issue, and not really an in
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 06:00:54AM -0800, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Ilija Hadzic
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >> The problem is the x86 nvidia binary driver does sit outside of
> >> subsystems, and I forsee wanting to share buffers with it from
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
wrote:
> Em 18-01-2012 10:14, Arnd Bergmann escreveu:
>> On Wednesday 18 January 2012, Semwal, Sumit wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Robert Morell wrote:
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementati
Em 18-01-2012 10:14, Arnd Bergmann escreveu:
> On Wednesday 18 January 2012, Semwal, Sumit wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Robert Morell wrote:
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
>>> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructu
On Wednesday 18 January 2012, Ilija Hadzic wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> >
> > The problem is the x86 nvidia binary driver does sit outside of
> > subsystems, and I forsee wanting to share buffers with it from the
> > Intel driver in light of the optimus hardware. Although n
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Ilija Hadzic
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
>>
>> The problem is the x86 nvidia binary driver does sit outside of
>> subsystems, and I forsee wanting to share buffers with it from the
>> Intel driver in light of the optimus hardware. Altho
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Dave Airlie wrote:
The problem is the x86 nvidia binary driver does sit outside of
subsystems, and I forsee wanting to share buffers with it from the
Intel driver in light of the optimus hardware. Although nouveau exists
and I'd much rather nvidia get behind that wrt the
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 January 2012, Semwal, Sumit wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Robert Morell wrote:
>> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
>> > issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf
On Wednesday 18 January 2012, Semwal, Sumit wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Robert Morell wrote:
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
> > issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
> > explicitly intended as an interface be
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:08:17 -0800
Robert Morell wrote:
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
> explicitly intended as an interface between modules/drivers, so it
> should use EXPORT_SYMBOL
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Robert Morell wrote:
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
> explicitly intended as an interface between modules/drivers, so it
> should use EXPORT_SYMBOL ins
39 matches
Mail list logo
