I just wanted to let every body know where this sat. Unfortunately I will not have time to work on it much this moth, I have to get my bills straightened ought. I did look into it and found that gatos and latest DRI are vary different I would recommend finding an older(2003/02/25 is the Xfree86 date in radeon_driver.c) copy of DRI and see if there is a smaller change set. I was looking at a unified diff /w 42000+ lines. From the gatos web page I can only find Xdrivers and a kernel mod, and no GLlib.
--- Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Mestnik wrote: > > --- Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > >>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. 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. I know there is allready a dispatch table > > for > clients, > > could we have 2 radeon drivers? For the ONE(currently active) Xserver it seams > > as thought > just a > > select for dispatching would be a temporary solution. How long would we need to > > maintain the > > proposed hack? Would all the developers be willing to switch to the new major > > version once > it's > > working front and back? Is gatos's DRM up to the challenge or dose it need work > > so it can > replace > > the current? > > > > By dual memory layout I'm saying that the client/X would have 2 drivers one for > > the old kernel > and > > one for the new. > > I doubt you'd need two whole new drivers -- just a couple of things that are > constants now would have to be set on the fly. Most addresses get set up by > the X server and everyone follows from there. > > Maybe the easiest thing would be to hack up a non-backwards-compatible version > of X, kernel and client drivers, and post the diff to the list. Then we can > see how to trim that down & make it backwards compatible. > > Keith > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------- 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
