On Friday 04 February 2005 15:26, Vladimir Dergachev wrote: > > maybe it makes sense to start including r300 in mesa. You guys have > > made a lot of progress. It doesn't have to be built by default, and > > the development can still happen in r300 cvs (just sync them from time > > to time), but it might help with the testing since snapshots would be > > made nightly. OTOH, it's still fairly experimental. > > Sorry did not reply earlier, I had to take some time to think about this. > > The biggest reason at the moment against including R300 driver in Mesa CVS > is that the code is a mess. There are r200 files that are not being used > in any way and large sections of code simply cut'n'pasted from R200 driver > with pieces commented out to allow everything to compile.
I would really like to see the r300 code not get its own driver. Unified drivers are a good thing, and radeon/r200 is bad enough. Unfortunately I don't know a good way to make sure they don't diverge more than they already have. I think the current development method is working fine for now, but that the end goal should be to fold the r300 code back into r200. > The second big reason is that we cannot simply include Mesa driver alone - > it would have to be accompanied by changes to the DRM driver. R300 DRM > driver is stabilized as far as experimental development is concerned, but > it is far from perfect from security standpoint (we basically allow almost > arbitrary commands as we did not know what we would need when we started). Here again, ideally this would get folded upstream too, once it's at least secure. I can't really mandate a policy since I haven't been contributing much to r300, but I would like to hear how people think this should progress. - aajx
pgp26u572pp07.pgp
Description: PGP signature
