diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst | 67 |
1 files changed, 67 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst index 94876938aef3..12b47c30fe2e 100644 --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst @@ -36,6 +36,73 @@ Primary Nodes, DRM Master and Authentication Open-Source Userspace Requirements ================================== +The DRM subsystem has stricter requirements than most other kernel subsystems on +what the userspace side for new uAPI needs to look like. This section here +explains what exactly those requirements are, and why they exist. + +The short summary is that any addition of DRM uAPI requires corresponding +open-sourced userspace patches, and those patches must be reviewed and ready for +merging into a suitable and canonical upstream project. + +GFX devices (both display and render/GPU side) are really complex bits of +hardware, with userspace and kernel by necessity having to work together really +closely. The interfaces, for rendering and modesetting, must be extremely wide +and flexible, and therefore it is almost always impossible to precisely define +them for every possible corner case. This in turn makes it really practically +infeasible to differentiate between behaviour that's required by userspace, and +which must not be changed to avoid regressions, and behaviour which is only an +accidental artifact of the current implementation. + +Without access to the full source code of all userspace users that means it +becomes impossible to change the implementation details, since userspace could +depend upon the accidental behaviour of the current implementation in minute +details. And debugging such regressions without access to source code is pretty +much impossible. As a consequence this means: + +- The Linux kernel's "no regression" policy holds in practice only for + open-source userspace of the DRM subsystem. DRM developers are perfectly fine + if closed-source blob drivers in userspace use the same uAPI as the open + drivers, but they must do so in the exact same way as the open drivers. + Creative (ab)use of the interfaces will, and in the past routinely has, lead + to breakage. + +- Any new userspace interface must have an open-source implementation as + demonstration vehicle. + +The other reason for requiring open-source userspace is uAPI review. Since the +kernel and userspace parts of a GFX stack must work together so closely, code +review can only assess whether a new interface achieves its goals by looking at +both sides. Making sure that the interface indeed covers the use-case fully +leads to a few additional requirements: + +- The open-source userspace must not be a toy/test application, but the real + thing. Specifically it needs to handle all the usual error and corner cases. + These are often the places where new uAPI falls apart and hence essential to + assess the fitness of a proposed interface. + +- The userspace side must be fully reviewed and tested to the standards of that + userspace project. For e.g. mesa this means piglit testcases and review on the + mailing list. This is again to ensure that the new interface actually gets the + job done. + +- The userspace patches must be against the canonical upstream, not some vendor + fork. This is to make sure that no one cheats on the review and testing + requirements by doing a quick fork. + +- The kernel patch can only be merged after all the above requirements are met, + but it **must** be merged **before** the userspace patches land. uAPI always flows + from the kernel, doing things the other way round risks divergence of the uAPI + definitions and header files. + +These are fairly steep requirements, but have grown out from years of shared +pain and experience with uAPI added hastily, and almost always regretted about +just as fast. GFX devices change really fast, requiring a paradigm shift and +entire new set of uAPI interfaces every few years at least. Together with the +Linux kernel's guarantee to keep existing userspace running for 10+ years this +is already rather painful for the DRM subsystem, with multiple different uAPIs +for the same thing co-existing. If we add a few more complete mistakes into the +mix every year it would be entirely unmanageable. + Render nodes ============ |