VIA Keeps Trying For Kernel Inclusion Of Its DRM

[phoronix]

Phoronix: VIA Keeps Trying For Kernel Inclusion Of Its DRM

Last December the Linux folks at VIA Technologies had released their Chrome 9 series DRM code, which is needed for Linux 3D support with these newer-generation VIA IGPs, but this initial version ended up getting rejected from inclusion into the mainline kernel on the basis of the rest of VIA's 3D stack for the Chrome 9 being closed-source and some problems with the code itself. The situation was similar to that of Intel's Poulsbo DRM being rejected from reaching the mainline Linux kernel earlier this year. This July the Chrome 9 DRM was re-released with aspirations of getting it in the mainline Linux kernel, but it was virtually the same as December's version and it too got knocked down for inclusion on the basis of no open-source "clients" using this Direct Rendering Manager driver and security issues with the code itself. In August there was then another new VIA 2D driver released, but unlike the various other VIA Linux drivers out there, this one actually uses the new DRM code...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NzY2Ng

[Eosie]

S3TC in exchange for pushing their DRM, good deal, isn't it? :p

[bugmenot]

It seems that Bruce uses a translation software?

Anyway, if there is a really good working free 2d driver and the drm code is also good, it should be integrated, shouldn't it?

[Zhick]

I think Linus/whoever is responsible should accept their drm into the kernel. It's obvious that they're trying hard to get included, and if they'll be rejected again they might get frustrated and decide to drop their FOSS efforts altogether.

[Max Spain]

What FOSS efforts? There may be effort, but I have yet to see any results confirming that effort is being made. I recently junked my Via C7 mobo in favor of an Intel dual core Atom system, and it was a HUGE upgrade.

[Chad Page]

S3TC in exchange for pushing their DRM, good deal, isn't it? :p
This. :)

(And yeah, VIA utterly dropped the ball with mini-itx and let intel roll right over them. Look @ newegg's mini-itx selection for proof.)

[curaga]

It should get included. They _are_ trying, and having it there would benefit users.

[val-gaav]

... for sure it will not benefit users at least not the long term, as it would lead to more companies blobs (one green light for this kind of inclusion and it means other are permited too). More blobs equals less secure and stable OS, if you want that you can always use windows blobland.

and well VIA has a "great" reputation among linux community so I'm sure VIA users are almost extinct here anyway.

[misiu_mp]

What does the inclusion of drm actually give them?
Will it mean their binary driver will be less depended on the kernel version?

[misiu_mp]

I think Linus/whoever is responsible should accept their drm into the kernel. It's obvious that they're trying hard to get included, and if they'll be rejected again they might get frustrated and decide to drop their FOSS efforts altogether.

Providing a binary driver is not really considered 'effort' amongst the linux community is it?

Besides they are a rather marginal company now, so if they don't want to play by our rules, we can live without them. On the other hand by committing to a free driver or releasing specifications, they could gain a considerable following amongst linux users.

[Eosie]

1) They will not make an open source 3D driver probably because they won't be able to implement their patented technologies in it.
2) They are damaging the open source graphics ecosystem by not allowing us to use their patents that everybody else already has.

My two cents.

[Adarion]

and well VIA has a "great" reputation among linux community so I'm sure VIA users are almost extinct here anyway.
Hey. Wait. I got even 2 VIA boxes. (And some chips here and there) A laptop with a C3-2 and a mini-ITX C7 based. Esp. latter is very good for an x86 in power consumption and the laptop runs 97% with free drivers (I think there might be a binary blob in the softmodem driver part somewhere).
The HW is cheap and isn't good for numbercrunching but that's not what I do with these boxes. Just the GPU/video issues (I'm grateful to the openchrome people but still it sucks) and a few bugs sometimes are nasty.
I'd rather like to see Harald Welte finally kick them to release some specs, cause from all I know the code they "sometimes" release is not of good quality *cough*.

[val-gaav]

Here is the graph from 2008 phoronix survey
http://www.phoronix.com/data/img/results/lgs_2008_results/2.png

I'm sorry but "almost extinct" seems to be good word for this situation... Not that I expect Windows graphs to be much better then this one.

[Adarion]

Here is the graph
Of course. Compared to AMD-ATI, nv and intel it's not much but still the largest among the small. I admit that I have quite a high concentration of VIA's among my AMDs (and intel CPU, nv GPU) but that's due to the fact that once I needed a notebook and it was the cheapest in the world (Elitegroup ECS G320) and that I was very interested in low power systems at all times - and since Transmeta is no more - I got hooked up to some VIA CPUs for I am still mainly working in the x86 area.
Hoping to receive my fist ARM (besides the router) soon.


Of course the mass market will have a high share of the 3 main GPU manufracturers but then a survery with about 10'000 people still doesn't tell you everything. It really depends on whom you reach. IT sites will barely receive traffic from people with an IE user agent but then websites about cooking or whatever might see a lot of IE users, too.
And there are still a lot of Linux/BSD users not being aware or not actively following Phoronix.
Still the trend is that not much people will have a VIA GPU for the reason that VIA does not sell these as dedicated cards. (And even if they did not much people would buy it I guess.)