On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 01:41, Mike A. Harris wrote: > On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Hod McWuff wrote: > > >So, to summarize, I need to know *roughly* what's changed since the > >Gatos folks forked, in terms of what-moved-where and an idea of any > >structural changes. I can read the different sources and figure out the > >code changes myself, but I need to know what I'm looking for. > > Presumeably the best way to find out what the GATOS developer(s) > changed, would be to ask them. ;o)
That's not what I meant - I mean, what big things have happened in the *DRI* tree since the Gatos fork. I need an idea of that to be able to sort gatos-related changes from simple base-version differences. > > >It would seem the best approach is to merge their changes - > >conceptually, one by one - into the current DRI sources. > > That sounds sane, however some of it may require a bit of > discussion to iron out issues. For example, anything that might > break ABI would be a no-go. If I recall correctly, in the past > there were ABI changing differences, however I have no idea if > that is the case nowadays. At this stage I'm mainly concerned with the kernel module. I've gotten some mixed results so far - including a blind copy of the radeon* files from the gatos version into a copy of the latest DRI sources hand-merged into the 2.6.2 build tree. That one actually runs tuxracer well, but locks the console (not the machine) after about 2 seconds. So, right now my focus is to isolate what the Gatos folks did to get the kernel module to work with their XFree driver. It did under 2.4. The challenge is, the development from ancient->recent, ancient->2.6-compatible, and ancient->gatos-compatible all happened separately, and may have been partially (haphazardly?) merged. > > That said, it would indeed be nice to have GATOS efforts work out > of the box with one single unified driver set. > Darn right. At the moment I'll settle for getting a 2.6.2 kernel module that handles ati.2 drivers on top of XFree 4.3.0... of course the next phase would be to merge the changes in the XFree driver. I suspect that's where many of the incompatibilities will be. I haven't found any changed constants between any of the forks, only changes to #ifdef/#if, minor internal data type and semantic changes, and large blocks of code moving around and morphing somewhat. It's those large blocks I'm trying to understand now. By the way, there are some apparently trivial changes present only in the 2.6.2 copy - apparently someone has added ia-64/x86-64 to a few arch sensitive defines. One of my next few posts will include a patch against the DRI copy of the relevant files. It should be pretty short. I'm trying to take this a step at a time, and the one after that is to merge the DRI kernel driver changes back into my 2.6.2 tree for smoother test building. If y'all like I'll send along a copy of that patch too. Once I get there, and complete the analysis of the gatos changes, I'll write a third patch to merge *that* into 2.6.2 and test the hell out of it. Given the previous merging, that patch should apply to the DRI tree after changing a few of the pathnames in the diff. Once again, the A/V features depend solely on the XFree-level Gatos changes. They work even with no DRM loaded at all. If I can get partial or intermittent 3D to work, via brute hacking at that, then it stands to reason further tweaking of the kernel module will get me to solid 3D performance. ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
