Thomas Winischhofer wrote: > > Jens Owen wrote: > > > So far, nobody could explain to me what direction the current > > > development is going which makes it necessary to update the SiS driver > > > in a way that requires additional docs. The 3D routines are all there, > > > changing the API is primitive... I am far from being an expert on this > > > matter, but an answer to this question would be interesting. > > > > If you think you can get the SiS driver ported to Mesa 4.0 without docs, > > then go for it. > > Well... as said, I am not an expert. It just sounds a little weird to > reduce the amount of working DRI choices (=number of drivers) in favor > of a new API....
As opposed to sacrificing progress on the supported chipsets for the sake of a poorly supported one? The infrastructure has to move ahead, the drivers that people or companies care about will come too. Please note that all of the drivers which were working in the dri cvs at the time we did mesa 3.5 were ported across as part of that effort. The sis driver was totally broken and unsupported at that time. You can keep the 4.0 driver quite close to the 3.4 driver if you want, which might make your task easier. > > I have to say, it's been my experience that anytime the sequencing of > > the graphics state being written to the hardware changes, you are going > > to need to have a good understanding for how the hardware works in order > > to debug any problems. That's why there is need for hardware > > documentation, IMO. > > Do you think it is possible to create some kind of compatibility layer > for 3.4 drivers? It should be fairly easy to examine the differences in interfaces and make only the minimal set of changes. There isn't *that* huge of a difference. Keith _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
