On Friday 04 February 2005 15:26, Vladimir Dergachev wrote:
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.
I agree. I think the i915 / i830 driver provides a good model. In that driver you have two different groups of files. On group contains the code that is the same for both drivers and is name <vendor>_*.[ch]. The other group contains the code that is specific to each chip and is named <chip>_*.[ch].
Since most of the driver is driven by function pointers, the only place that has any 'if (this_chip) { foo; } else if (that_chip) { bar; }' is, if I'm not mistaken, in the context creation code.
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc. Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
