airlied (airlied) wrote,

embedded GPU : what are they hiding?

So to follow on from my posting stating my position wrt kernel drivers for closed source userspace drivers, lets take a look at the embedded GPU industry and Linux kernel relationship.

What does the embedded industry get from Linux?

They get a kernel which is royalty free, with 1000s of man-years of development experience and resources. Before Linux these vendors either sourced an OS on a royalty basis from some closed-shop, or rolled their own in-house one.

Now people might say "but the embedded GPU industry has to support Windows as well", but take one look at NVIDIA Tegra One and you can see the embedded windows marketplace is less than important, NVIDIA Tegra Two is all about the Linux, whereas they were pretty much only talking to MS on Tegra one.

So Linux is a great boon for this industry, and means they can produce higher quality products for a lower cost (or lower quality products at a lower cost in some cases). So really there are probably two games in town for these embedded vendors, selling into Apple or selling into Linux centric developments, like Android, Meego, Linaro.

So what are they actually hiding in userspace?

The main thing they seem to be hiding is shader compilers and their GPU assembler code, things that convert from GLES into the assembler code for their GPUs. This stuff isn't rocket science but it probably is where most of their speed up and tricks are hidden.

So why do they think it valuable?

I think all 3D IP vendors dream of becoming Imagination Technologies, they need to learn there is already one Imagination Technologies and the only way to easily disrupt their revenue stream and sell into other SOCs is to be disruptive, not just follow the herd. They also probably had to spend a lot of money writing a decent GPU compiler from scratch, whereas most embedded firmware is a lot more trivial, so they probably think they need to directly recoup the costs from this development instead of giving it away. The thing is they are hw vendors, the sw is a sunk cost, opening it would actually make future maintenance easier. HW companies never do well at SW and they would be best to just open it and try and involve some community development around it.

Is the value of this IP more valuable than what the receive from Linux?

This is the crux of my issue with these vendors, they are receiving the Linux kernel for free, but don't want to contribute anything back. They know they can't sell into any where else except Linux driven products, but they insist on keeping their development methodologies from the days of Windows and their own in-house OSes. Those days are gone, but they cling to the idea that for some reason they can produce a better GPU stack on their own than they could in collaboration with other, despite the fact that the kernel that forms the basis for their sales was developed in this fashion. They also all use gcc as the compiler for their CPUs again proving the insanity.

Isn't it up to them what they do?

Totally, but its also up to the Linux community to push back against them. The thing is they'd never have opened any code if it wasn't for the GPL making them at least open the kernel portions, they don't care about freedom or GPL, they care about their bottom line, and doing the least amount of work to remain legal and make money. Now they are getting all this wonderful software for free, Linux phone sales are driving their bottom line, but they still don't want to play the game by the rules of the kernel. They want to have their cake and eat it too. (the cake is a lie). Hence they spend their time creating their own solutions in private, releasing what they have to comply with legalese but never actually allowing people the freedom to use their devices.

So shouldn't we give a little?

The thing is two major vendors have been pushing Imagination Technologies for years to open something, these guys are aiming to sell thousands->millions of devices, we have gotten the ugliest kernel shim in the world in 4 years of trying. All the other vendors are only willing to give that little. I don't personally think any of them want to open this stuff and will hide behind IP excuses for ever.

What will make them change their minds?

a) money and lots of it. If google or olpc can demand open driver commitments (in contracts, not handwaving agreements) then I suspect these vendors will quickly realise the value of their IP is dwarved by the value of sales. This probably means a major chance for one of the vendors to control a lot of the space in the Linux world.

b) disruptive vendor, one vendor realises before the others that opening their IP will lead to more sales than keeping it closed and also lead to the chance of more people optimising their technology and leveraging other work in the industry.

So are you saying they should drop all their in-house developed solutions?

No I'm saying that the driver for their hardware is a single entity, and if the whole entity isn't open, then none of it is truly open. So if they don't want to release an open userspace, then they don't get to merge their open kernel bits to support the closed userspace. We have to keep the maintenance burden on them, so it keeps costing them money to track newer kernels, and they don't get community support from other vendors who have committed to doing things right.

So why should they re-write drivers?

This happens in Linux the whole time, with nearly every new technology. Wireless, RAID, SATA for example, all have had vendors trying to push complete stacks of their own writing, you'll notice over time the drivers that are actually written to the current stacks work best, an the crazy vendors drivers are often horror shows.

What would be nice to happen?

It would be great if there was a hero with time/funding and involvement in the ARM GPU community to take over being maintainer of these solutions, from kernel all the way to userspace. Vendor driver writers could ask this person for advice, and they could have some sort of working group where they develop a stack based around current Linux technologies, like GEM/TTM/DRI2/Mesa/Gallium3D. If you take a look at the mesa stack lately, there has been a lot of work on making it work as an EGL/GLES stack as well as a classic GL stack. Then vendors would supply open drivers compliant with this stack, and just sell lots of chips.

What would be most likely negative solution?

We get what we have now, they maintain the 5-6 GPU stacks in their own world, and never talk to each other, and it costs them more and more money going forward to maintain. Some hero reverse engineers one or two of the GPU architecture, maybe some hero writes a open driver stack from docs under NDA or with open docs.

I may update this post as I have more thoughts ;-)
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened