On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 02:18, Mike Mestnik wrote: > --- Michel Dnzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 18:27, Mike Mestnik wrote: > > > --- Michel Dnzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 18:43, Mike Mestnik wrote: > > > > > I have something to add to this. Recently I tested gatos drivers going > > > > > from dri to gatos was painless. However when I went back my computer > > > > > locked up. > > > > > > > > That's because they have made incompatible changes to the DRM but > > > > haven't changed its major version number to reflect that. > > > > > > > I think I understand what your saying. I did a full build (make World && make > > > install), > > > overwriting all of DRI, hopefully. Then I did the same to get back. I also > > > updated and > > > rmmod/modprobe the DRM, bothways. I think what is going on here is that there > > > is some state > > that > > > needs to be cleared on init, and deinit also(in gatos and fiergl). Thats why I > > > think there > > should > > > be a merge for the difference in state changes made on init/deinit. I don't > > > think this should > > > change the API, and would seem to be more of a bug fix. > > > > They use a different memory layout on the card, on which all components > > (X server, DRM and clients) have to agree, so it's very much an API > > issue. > > > > We want to move to their memory layout for several reasons, but there > > has to be a transition which preserves backwards compatibility. That > > provided, the problems on switching between DRMs may be gone as a bonus > > with some luck, or it will just be a detail to work out hopefully. > > > I think I could tackle this. What's needed is a dual memory layout settup for the > next minor > version. This would payve the way to release the next major version, if minor >= x > will be > forward compatible to the new major.
Different major versions are incompatible by definition, hence there should never be a major version change ideally. > I would say to have dual memory layout support for the DRM would be a > gross wast of kernel resorces. So it will be up to X server and clients > to carry the burdon of having the new configuration. Have you read the proposal discussed in the bug I posted earlier in this thread? It's pretty lean and should work with old 3D drivers. > Is gatos's DRM up to the challenge or dose it need work so it can replace > the current? I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm still looking forward to their feedback on said proposal. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
