undefined | Better HN

0 pointstimschmidt1y ago0 comments

Often device drivers specific to the model of handset are only available as pre-compiled binary blobs, and will not run with any future kernel release without herculean effort to reverse engineer them and implement a shim. This effectively ties the hardware to a single kernel release.

The practice makes ewaste of otherwise perfectly usable devices, and should be illegal.

0 comments

byw1y ago

Any devices that fare better in this regard?

pimeys1y ago

Not really, no. For manufacturers it is faster to just write the drivers once for their chip, and release them targeting to an exact Linux kernel version rather than actually writing good enough code that it goes through the LKML process and gets merged into mainline. It costs money to update the drivers later on and it especially costs money to mainline them later on.

b9b10eb7361y ago

Nobody's asking for mainline submissions though. Just publishing the drivers source code under a FLOSS licence when they stop supporting it would be enough to let the community take over the maintenance.

1 more reply

prosody1y ago

Isn’t that significantly on the Linux kernel not having stable driver ABIs?

timschmidtOP1y ago

I don't see how any choice the Linux developers make forces phone manufacturers to do anything.

It's their choice to use Linux. They can abide by the license or not ship Linux.

Not to mention that there are many more or less stable APIs within the kernel (which even has versioned API support in places) such as Video4Linux which manufacturers seem dead set against using.

gf0001y ago

They do abide by the license, but it's also their choice whether to maintain cheap firmware for n years old devices, that they may not even have the license to distribute in source form.

Nonetheless, android mostly solved the issue of the kernel's lack of stable interface via their HAL.

realusername1y ago

They could also contribute to the Linux kernel like normal companies instead of shipping half broken binary blobs.

IshKebab1y ago

That's a really backwards way of thinking about software distribution. It's like Debian's idea that every piece of software in existence should be packaged for Debian (and Suse, Red Hat, Fedora, Ubuntu, etc.).

I don't package any of the software I write for Debian because I don't want to have to jump through their hoops. I don't blame device manufacturers for wanting to avoid jumping through Linux's hoops. Especially with having to deal with Linus.

Nobody likes Apple's app review process do they? I don't think device driver writers should have to go through that.

(I also wish they would open the code but not having a stable driver ABI clearly doesn't make that happen.)

I think a valid reason for not having a stable driver ABI is that it's a mountain of work and makes everything else more difficult. But I've never heard anyone give that as the reason.

1 more reply

gf0001y ago

Most of them buy parts from other companies, that often license the source only for inclusion.

This is a very myopic view of the industry.

1 more reply

asveikau1y ago

I think the interfaces we are talking about are not part of upstream Linux. They will bolt on half baked stuff regardless of the interfaces Linux provides.

AnssiH1y ago

AFAIK the Android binary blobs are generally userspace, not kernel drivers.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

byw1y ago

Any devices that fare better in this regard?

pimeys1y ago

b9b10eb7361y ago

1 more reply

prosody1y ago

Isn’t that significantly on the Linux kernel not having stable driver ABIs?

timschmidtOP1y ago

I don't see how any choice the Linux developers make forces phone manufacturers to do anything.

It's their choice to use Linux. They can abide by the license or not ship Linux.

Not to mention that there are many more or less stable APIs within the kernel (which even has versioned API support in places) such as Video4Linux which manufacturers seem dead set against using.

gf0001y ago

They do abide by the license, but it's also their choice whether to maintain cheap firmware for n years old devices, that they may not even have the license to distribute in source form.

Nonetheless, android mostly solved the issue of the kernel's lack of stable interface via their HAL.

realusername1y ago

They could also contribute to the Linux kernel like normal companies instead of shipping half broken binary blobs.

IshKebab1y ago

Nobody likes Apple's app review process do they? I don't think device driver writers should have to go through that.

(I also wish they would open the code but not having a stable driver ABI clearly doesn't make that happen.)

I think a valid reason for not having a stable driver ABI is that it's a mountain of work and makes everything else more difficult. But I've never heard anyone give that as the reason.

1 more reply

gf0001y ago

Most of them buy parts from other companies, that often license the source only for inclusion.

This is a very myopic view of the industry.

1 more reply

asveikau1y ago

I think the interfaces we are talking about are not part of upstream Linux. They will bolt on half baked stuff regardless of the interfaces Linux provides.

AnssiH1y ago

AFAIK the Android binary blobs are generally userspace, not kernel drivers.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse