I was just framing a reply to Alan's question, and wasn't quite sure what to say but I'll try anyway.
I'd not thought of the rfb driver as a rename of the nfb and pfb drivers. It's an entirely different entity that does, as Alan pointed out, drive the same devices. I see your point, though, that this could be considered a rename of the two existing drivers. I'd need to consult with someone that knows release engineering better than I, but I'd think that the rfb driver should be made mutually exclusive of the nfb and pfb drivers. I'm not familiar enough with packaging and installation issues to know how to achieve this. Both drivers can exist in the system without competing with each other. The first one found in the /etc/driver_aliases file is the one that would be used, but this doesn't seem to provide a useful mechanism for binding the driver to the device. We made the statement about the source coming from open source code and also from ATI/AMD proprietary information so indicate that we do not at this time have permission to deliver the source. I believe it's the project's intent to pursue this with AMD. -- Eric Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> Eric Sultan wrote: >> >>> This project delivers SPARC Xorg support for the currently supported >>> Sun (AMD based) products including XVR-50, XVR-100 and XVR-300 >>> graphics accelerators. The deliverables include a ddx module, a >>> kernel driver, a vts module and an fbconfig module. The driver name >>> is rfb. The source code for these modules is based on the ATI >>> RADEON open source and also on AMD proprietary information. >>> >> >> Don't the pfb & nfb kernel drivers already attach to those devices? >> What's the relationship? Does a user have to uninstall those and >> install the rfb kernel driver? >> >> > Changing driver names is *usually* a royal PITA. *HOWEVER*, > framebuffer drivers are unlikely to have their names coded in many > places, so I think this might be OK. But I'd imagine the pfb/nfb > drivers would indeed need to be uninstalled (possibly a conflict entry > recorded in the pkginfo.) > > It would be easier if the driver names didn't change. > > While not architectural, will these drivers be released as Open Source > (CDDL or otherwise)? The case doesn't make this clear, and I worry > about "AMD proprietary information". > > -- Garrett >
