Looking at darwin? (was: Re: BSD video capture emulation
mupi at mknet.org
Tue Jul 15 14:02:41 PDT 2003
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tuesday 15 July 2003 03:07 am, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> Marco Molteni wrote this message on Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 09:53 +0200:
> > I appreciate your effort to provide a "video4bsd" facility.
> > Since Apple is famous for being one of the OS of choice for multimedia
> > professional work, and Darwin is so closely related to FreeBSD, may I
> > suggest to check if Darwin already has some of the
> > APIs/services/subsystems/whatever that might be ported to FreeBSD?
> > I don't follow Darwin so I cannot say for sure, but I think we should
> > try to avoid, if possible, the Not Invented Here syndrome ;-)
> Last I heard, there was an issue of licenses between Darwin and FreeBSD.
> I have sent mail to -core asking about it.
> That said, we might want to leverage their userland API for it, but
> I don't think we could use any of their hardware API. They have a very
> different hardware framework. One that would make adding shims a bit
> too complex.
> So, are you going to do the research and work on this? You didn't
> even post any links to code, so all the video API may be apart of
> Mac OSX and not Darwin. This means that we can't get the code. So,
> if you really thing we should do this route, send your research to
> the list.
After some casual perusal of the Darwin website, it appears that
1) IO/Kit (the device driver interface) is part of Darwin, not part of the
"proprietary" part of OS/X
2) If we really wanted to, we could probably therefore use it, but a) we would
have to including the original Apple licensing stuff (not a big deal, most of
the stuff already includes a BSD disclaimer), and b) (more significantly, in
my book) anything we do, we have to give back to Apple for them to possibly
use and make money from.
However, it seems that it is not (just) a framework for video drivers, which
is what we are looking at specifically. Using it in that context would
involve rewriting more or less that entire IO subsytem, something I don't
think we are (or should be) willing to tackle. I can see bringing some Audio
capabilities along for the ride in the new framework, just becuase most video
also has an audio component, so it makes sense to be able to streamline
audio+video, which could possibly help maintain sync, but I don't see
throwing out all the other IO pieces, or having to rewrite them (although
some might argue that this could give us better devoce support overall, and
its possible, but it doesn't seem worth it to me). Also, using this
framework would bring yet another licensing arrangement to bear, and while,
as far as this non-lawyer can tell, the Apple license is less restrictive
than, say, the GPL, it is still more restrictive than the BSD licesne we are
trying to keep all the kernel under, and as much as possible of the thest of
the base system. Trying to figure out which bits are covered by which
license is bad enough when there are only 2 licenses involved.
What IO/Kit DOES have that we want, is a way to interface from userland and
control the device driver: "The I/O Kit is the device driver subsystem of Mac
OS X, and is part of Darwin. The I/O Kit provides a set of C functions and
C++ classes, including object-oriented abstractions common to various
families of drivers. In addition, for many device types, the I/O Kit provides
a device interface that enables an application to communicate with and
control a device from user space." (from
This description does sound pretty much like what I've seen discussed here,
except that the discussion here has focussed specifically on Video drivers,
not "all" IO devices (and note that not necessarily all devices have (or
need) userland access)
My gut feeling, based on all of this is that while we could probably benefit
from some of the work already done, I don't think the headaches it would
entail would be worth moving the entire structure over. I don't think the
licensing issue is one we want to tackle either, especially without approval
from -core. (Although looking about some of the things apple is saying about
themselves and how they work to get their changes implemented upstream
(specifically citing Apache (anyone know the details on this?)) perhpas they
would push such a change "upstream" (or perhaps they already tried and were
What may be worth it (and there may be some legal ramifications here
surrounding "derivative works") is looking to see how they do it, spcifically
for video devices, and then see what it would take to provide something
similar--but that is, if I understand it, exactly what we are discussing here
It occurs to me that better model to follow (if I correctly understood the
goals) would be to look at the newpcm stuff, which provides a common
interface for sound cards, rather than a unique all-encompassing device
driver that provides the entire device's necessary support.
Well, that's my 2CW, I better stop before I make a bigger fool of myself....
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the freebsd-multimedia