Open Source Drivers?

[josch]

I read about the PowerVR SGX GPU - this part of the pandora has no open source drivers for sure.
What else is not open? Will there be other hardware requiring binary blobs? DJWillis told me that there is some new kind of Wifi module.
OpenPandora sounds like an open device - it is not due to PowerVR. Are there other parts requiring proprietary blobs?

 

[juanvvc]

Actually, the Pandora is not open from the point of view of OpenSource or OpenHardware initiatives. It is open from the point of view that we customers were asked about desired specifications, we see most of the development process and we will be able to install on the Pandora whatever software we want.

 

[josch]

Okay thank you for clarifying this. (not that i thought that AOpen was open too )

So i change my question to: what hardware will need proprietary blobs?

• PowerVR
• ...

 

[Squidge]

I don't know if we can disclose that information yet, as negotiations are still underway, so some stuff may end up being open or closed source depending on those negotiations.

 

[josch]

okay but you DO negotiate to get hardware with open source drivers, dont you?

and only if everything fails you pick hardware with binary drivers?

EDIT: @squidge: what do you mean by "i dont know"? is there no specific nda?

 

[Chip]

okay but you DO negotiate to get hardware with open source drivers, dont you?

and only if everything fails you pick hardware with binary drivers?

EDIT: @Squidge: what do you mean by "i dont know"? is there no specific nda?



Obviously the devs are doing what they can to get as many open drivers as possible. Binary drivers are a PITA for everybody involved (as evidenced by the trouble MW is having with the alpha video drivers). Companies are very protective of their IP - sometimes unnecessarily so. It can be tricky to convince them to do the right thing and "give away" something they've probably spent a lot of time and money developing, even if in the end it will only help them sell more hardware.

I think what Squidge is reffering to is the fact that there are probably several different contracts that he is bound by, and rather than try to determine what he is and isn't allowed to say (nearly impossible unless you're a lawyer), he's playing it safe and saying nothing. Remember, the OMAP SoC contains IP from several different companies, each of which probaly has their own agreement. The wifi/bluetooth chip is from yet another as-yet-unnamed company and probably has its own restrictions too.

Eventually all of this will be sorted out and we'll all have access to these details. Once the Pandora is released commercially, I don't think they can legally prevent disclosure of what parts it contains. At the very least, you can open it up and take a look for yourself

 

[palmertech]

Unless they sand the chips, which I have seen in many of my chinese gadgets.

 

[kloplop321]

sand the chips?

 

[Tobriand]

If I were to guess there's one of several situations. There's an NDA in place, and they're negotiating to get it removed. There's no NDA, but the relevant companies aren't giving them anything but the blob anyway (and the requisite instructions for using it). Or there's nothing but the blob, AND there's even an NDA on the use of that.

All guesses though...

 

[Svartalf]

Obviously the devs are doing what they can to get as many open drivers as possible. Binary drivers are a PITA for everybody involved (as evidenced by the trouble MW is having with the alpha video drivers). Companies are very protective of their IP - sometimes unnecessarily so. It can be tricky to convince them to do the right thing and "give away" something they've probably spent a lot of time and money developing, even if in the end it will only help them sell more hardware.

You wouldn't believe the silly things the IP Attorneys for hardware companies will tell them just to justify the billing they gig them with. As it stands, it's taken a LONG time, but companies like AMD got the ATI old-guard to see the errors of their ways (And believe me, they'd gotten pretty silly there for a while...) and I didn't think we'd see R300/R400, R500, or R600 technical information sufficient to do drivers with. I can only hope we can get Imagination and a few others to see the wisdom behind letting people help them help sell their parts.

QUOTE

I think what Squidge is reffering to is the fact that there are probably several different contracts that he is bound by, and rather than try to determine what he is and isn't allowed to say (nearly impossible unless you're a lawyer), he's playing it safe and saying nothing.



Heh... Indeed. If we're going to have even if only a snowball's chance in hell of getting open drivers or open tech info on some of this stuff, you're going to have have them NOT breach ANY of those agreements. Better to be on the safe side until at least the 3000 unit run is ready to go.

QUOTE

Remember, the OMAP SoC contains IP from several different companies, each of which probaly has their own agreement. The wifi/bluetooth chip is from yet another as-yet-unnamed company and probably has its own restrictions too.



Things we DO know would be TI's DSP, the Cortex-A8, and ImgTec's PowerVR 530. There's going to be a blob needed (at least right now, that is... ) for the PowerVR- they've been holding those cards very close to the hip for a long time now. I can hope and dream that they'll twig onto what AMD has already figured out- there's very, very few secrets we're not hot on the heels of, or have a better answer than they have, waiting in the wings (Gallium 3D would be one of those "better" items... )

sand the chips?

Yes. Take a bit of 100/200 grit sandpaper and sand any identifying marks off the chips so their competitors can't figure out (well...make it more difficult, at least...) what they're using and how they're using it.

If I were to guess there's one of several situations. There's an NDA in place, and they're negotiating to get it removed. There's no NDA, but the relevant companies aren't giving them anything but the blob anyway (and the requisite instructions for using it). Or there's nothing but the blob, AND there's even an NDA on the use of that.

Heh... Try all of the above.

 

[Chip]

If I were to guess there's one of several situations. There's an NDA in place, and they're negotiating to get it removed. There's no NDA, but the relevant companies aren't giving them anything but the blob anyway (and the requisite instructions for using it). Or there's nothing but the blob, AND there's even an NDA on the use of that.

Remember that the OMAP chip itself is not yet commercially available. In this case an "NDA" might cover all public discussion of the technical details of the chip. I've posted before (I'd give a link, but I'm posting from my phone and that's a bitch without multiple tabs) about how keeping these sort of details under wraps is pretty standard. If the devs are not allowed to talk about something right now, it's just because that is how this business works. It's not because there is some underlying conspiracy or terrible secret that they're trying to cover up.

Again, all will be revieled in time.

 

[atomicthumbs]

Does it really matter? I can't see most Pandora users changing and recompiling their drivers; unless you're an open-for-open's sake person like RMS.

 

[Svartalf]

Does it really matter? I can't see most Pandora users changing and recompiling their drivers; unless you're an open-for-open's sake person like RMS.

If it were open, I'd be able to help MWeston with the video support. Since it's not, the best I can hope for the nonce is to have them NDA me and work from that perspective.

It's not that the users will do things with the source; it's the hardcore hackers and the developers that source for things like the device layer matters being open or not.

 

[TaG]

It's not because there is some underlying conspiracy or terrible secret that they're trying to cover up.

Damn - a conspiracy sounds more fun than lawyers and NDAs.

Again, all will be revieled in time.

Ain't that always the way. Pandora is a much more open project than most and we need to trust the guys and let them negotiate. And negotiation in private has a better chance of getting things opened that discussing things in public, even if there are aspects without NDAs.
I am frequently amazed at work at the tiniest details getting NDAs.

 

[doc5avage]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a blob?
Also, if the drivers end up being open or not, will it affect the ability of the devs to be able to code graphical applications efficiently for the pandora?

 

[sindbad]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a blob?
Also, if the drivers end up being open or not, will it affect the ability of the devs to be able to code graphical applications efficiently for the pandora?
A binary blob is a pejorative name for a closed-source piece of code that doesn't work standalone, usually a driver. They are impossible to debug and/or fix and often have issues with new kernel versions.Also they are illegal to ship, since the GPL forces derived works (this includes all kernel modules) to release their source. Because of this, the user is usually asked whether or not he/she wants it installed at the first startup.

However, nvidia has managed to have decent closed source drivers for quite some time now. If ImgTec get their act together and at least supply and properly maintain a binary driver, it shouldn't be that much of a problem. Hopefully the wifi isn't broadcom, everything else tends to work.

 

[josch]

A blob is a piece of binary file(s) that contains the driver. This piece of software is proprietary - you have no sourcecode to build it your self and to use it with your kernel you have to build it as a kernelmodul with kernel sources. This is illegal - against the terms of the gpl.
For example nvidia is suppling a binary driver that forces the user to do illegal actions to use it. But as graphics drivers are needed nvidia is at least tolerated.
the problems with such blobs are:
* you can not fix simple problems yourself
* you cannot improve it
* you cannot learn from it
* you have to rebuild it everytime you change your kernel
* building them is illegal most of the time (there are proprietary firmware solutions which are also bad but not illegal to use as they do not require to be build with gpl'd sources)

 

[josch]

Does it really matter? I can't see most Pandora users changing and recompiling their drivers; unless you're an open-for-open's sake person like RMS.

probably 95% of the users never will but there are developers that want to hack the device and for them binary drivers are the PAIN.

if you have a look at the openmoko project you can see all the beautiful things one can do with a open platform. there is even L4 ported to it!! others put dozens of differnt OSes on it (debian, gentoo, openmoko variants...) i even know people working on a freebsd port. i thought it was called openpandora because it wanted to give people this kind of possibilities.

if it is not supposed to be like this, it is just like projects like android who use linux but constrain the user in what he can do with it. okay maybe this is too harsh but let it compare to the nokia tablets - i think this fits more in terms of open-ness.

i dont want to offend anyone - i'm more than glad if the hardware drivers are open apart from powervr. i only want to let you know why i think open drivers are important.

 

[sindbad]

if it is not supposed to be like this, it is just like projects like android who use linux but constrain the user in what he can do with it.
Android is in fact a framework, it just happens to be based on linux. It is limited by design.

I just remembered, I'm a bit curious about Jazelle. Could anyone satisfy me?

 

[Chip]

I just remembered, I'm a bit curious about Jazelle. Could anyone satisfy me?

Satisfied?



OK look, if I didn't do it, somebody else would have