Re:Samsung to jump into laptop processor market with Exynos ...
by 2526702934 on Tuesday May 11, 2021 @06:43AM
(#27116427)
Can someone explain to me how ARM expect to protect its IP if it doesn't publish anything about it?
I was under the impression that in order to protect IP, one has to either patent it or copyright it, thus some form of publication must be made. If ARM does publish technical documentation (1), ARM has a way to prove infrigement or prior art whenever someone else tries to use their IP without their approval. If ARM doesn't, how can they prove anything?
(1) Obviously, if they publish the tech. docs, they might as well help driver implementors, might they not?
The Debian drivers you cite are the Panfrost Lima drivers, which are the reverse engineering works everyone else did in the dark with no help from ARM, until very very recently.
I am not conflating anything. ARM has provided no documentation no support to help folks make drivers. I stand by my original post entirely, and disagree deeply. ARM's gpu chip design is stamped out into countless chips, verbatim or close to verbatim. Even if individual chip makers did want to support their chips, I suspect it is in fact ARM who would block them from releasing open source drivers, from documenting the chips they make: ARM's desire has been to protect it's IP, and to help the various embedded support partners that do know how to work with their chips and their IP in a secure fashion. ARM has been a bad player in the Linux world, has worked against allowing Linux support. The problem is absolutely ARM, not those vendors.