Philip Brown wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 09:19:35PM -0600, Jens Owen wrote:
> > However, I have to point out--that whomever is doing
> > the work get's their way; and since I don't have the bandwidth to
> > support the solaris DRM drivers--that's all I'm going to say, except:
> > If the current DRI/DRM architecture doesn't meet the needs of the
> > Solaris user and developer community, I am willing to work on broadening
> > our infrastructure to address those needs.
>
> nice to hear. What did you have in mind when you say
> "broaden our infrastructure" ?
Making changes to the DRI and DRM interfaces is time consuming.
Changing to the drmCommand semantics was a rather straight forward
infrastructure change, but changing all the drivers the currently work
under both Linux and FreeBSD to work with the new semantics was the time
consuming part.
That said, when I understand where and how the current infrastructure is
limiting your ability to support Solaris, I'm willing to work on the
infrastructure and resulting Linux changes required to keep a single
code base working on multiple OS's. In the end, the extra work will be
less than maintaining two separate infrastructures.
So, let me turn the question around. What is it you need from the
current DRI/DRM infrastructure that you are not getting today? I got
the impression from your previous e-mails that you were looking for a
solution that did not require kernel level support. If security and
multiple direct rendering contexts are not a concern, and won't ever be
for Solaris; then we should talk about taking Utah-GLX like shortcuts
under the DRI.
Regards,
Jens
-- /\
Jens Owen / \/\ _
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ \ \ Steamboat Springs, Colorado
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
