On Llu, 2004-08-02 at 19:57, Dave Jones wrote: > > The problem is that each driver has different needs based on hardware > > functionality. > > How does this differ from any other subsystem that supports > cards with features that may not be present in another model ? > Other subsystems have dealt with this problem without the need > to introduce horrors like the abstractions in DRM.
The abstractions are one big mistake IMHO. But in context their origin is easy to understand. The original goal was to support a lot of platforms and to minimise code writing. The Mesa layer uses this kind of templating a lot and for the 3D client side code its a real win. Someone I think took them a stage too far and into a place that it didn't work out. The memory manager is a bit more complex, a lot of drivers do have different needs for memory management and some of it has to be client side. Its also a really really hot path when doing direct render. > > AFAIK, the only drivers that have any sort of in-kernel memory manager > > are the radeon (only used by the R200 driver) and i830. > > ISTR SiS has some memory management code too, though I've not looked > too closely at that for a long time. SiS and VIA do as well. Both of them overdo the kernel side work and it hurts performance however. Alan ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now, one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
