[aidenn0]

Even more clear:

> Cleaning up that is not enough, abstracting kernel API like kmalloc or i2c, or similar, is a no go. If the current drm infrastructure does not suit your need then you need to work on improving it to suit your need. You can not develop a whole drm layer inside your code and expect to upstream it.

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2016-Februa...

[wolfgke]

> Cleaning up that is not enough, abstracting kernel API like kmalloc or i2c, or similar, is a no go. If the current drm infrastructure does not suit your need then you need to work on improving it to suit your need. You can not develop a whole drm layer inside your code and expect to upstream it.

But abstracting all this is fitting the infrastructure to their needs (which is having a common driver infrastructure for many operating systems).

[pas]

Sure, but then why not just continue with the binary blob?

Kernel development is largely an optimization process of the internal model of what a kernel should do, and for that developers need first-class raw data, the DRM maintainer wants to know how you'd like to change DRM. And though you can put that into a translation/abstraction layer, it's not helpful, because that doesn't scale, because the maintainer would have to look at every such layers and come up with a common one, and repeat this grueling task every time they want to move forard with DRM itself.