Keith Whitwell wrote: > > 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?
Well, my point was just finding a middle way (like my question for a compatibility layer was meant to point out). But you're of course right. > You can keep the 4.0 driver quite close to the 3.4 driver if you want, > which might make your task easier. This is assumingly the only way to do this without additional specs. > > 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. I will take a look. Is there a document on these differences somewhere? Thomas -- Thomas Winischhofer Vienna/Austria mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** http://www.winischhofer.net _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
