Re: Blocking radeonhd (was Re: Fedora 12 Graphics Issues: Cancel F13 and concentrate on fixing F12 ?)
Hans Ulrich Niedermann (h...@n-dimensional.de) said: > > > The big issue is with KMS on using radeonhd is like shooting > > > yourself in the face. Either we need to patch radeonhd in Fedora to > > > not start with KMS enabled or remove it from the distro. > > > > I am working on such a patch to radeonhd right now. > > The patch has been finished and has been tested on my system. > > Packages with the patch have been built and are both in rawhide and on > their way towards updates-testing/ and updates/ for F11 and F12 > (xorg-x11-drv-radeonhd-1.3.0-4.2.20091204git.fc*). Cool. Objection withdrawn. :) Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Blocking radeonhd (was Re: Fedora 12 Graphics Issues: Cancel F13 and concentrate on fixing F12 ?)
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 22:12:00 +0100 Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: > On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:20:20 +1000 > Dave Airlie wrote: > > > The big issue is with KMS on using radeonhd is like shooting > > yourself in the face. Either we need to patch radeonhd in Fedora to > > not start with KMS enabled or remove it from the distro. > > I am working on such a patch to radeonhd right now. The patch has been finished and has been tested on my system. Packages with the patch have been built and are both in rawhide and on their way towards updates-testing/ and updates/ for F11 and F12 (xorg-x11-drv-radeonhd-1.3.0-4.2.20091204git.fc*). -- Hans Ulrich Niedermann -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Blocking radeonhd (was Re: Fedora 12 Graphics Issues: Cancel F13 and concentrate on fixing F12 ?)
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:20:20 +1000 Dave Airlie wrote: > The big issue is with KMS on using radeonhd is like shooting yourself > in the face. Either we need to patch radeonhd in Fedora to not start > with KMS enabled or remove it from the distro. I am working on such a patch to radeonhd right now. For some reason, the necessary information on how to do that is much easier to find now than it was back then when KMS was first introduced to Fedora when I first tried to write one. -- Hans Ulrich Niedermann -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Blocking radeonhd (was Re: Fedora 12 Graphics Issues: Cancel F13 and concentrate on fixing F12 ?)
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 08:04 +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote: > Dne 1.12.2009 21:43, Bill Nottingham napsal(a): > > If the e1000 driver is broken in the kernel for some people, we don't > > support > > shipping an alternate driver. If a new version of the intel graphics driver > > is broken for some people, we don't support shipping a pre-KMS version > > of the driver. > > > > Why would we do differently here? > > Because if e1000 is broken, we can be sure with reasonably high level of > certainity, it will be fixed without undue delay. For Xorg drivers > (especially with regards to 3D support) we have hope that it will be > slightly better in the next Fedora release, but complete coverage is > still just a dream. > > Moreover, I don't know what's your problem with radeonhd driver in > Fedora. Hanz does IMHO excellent job on maintaining it and it doesn't > drag much additional resources on anybody (except on me, perhaps, > because I triage bugs for him as well, which is the reason that this > time I even a little know what I am talking about ;)). And of course > comparing -radeonhd bugs (http://is.gd/59Hc0) with -ati bugs > (http://is.gd/59Hp0) is unfair, because there are many more users of > -ati driver, but at least it shows that radeonhd is really not burning > issue. 3D is a misnomer, radeonhd vs radeon has nothing whatsoever to do with the 3D stack. The big issue is with KMS on using radeonhd is like shooting yourself in the face. Either we need to patch radeonhd in Fedora to not start with KMS enabled or remove it from the distro. Dave. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Blocking radeonhd (was Re: Fedora 12 Graphics Issues: Cancel F13 and concentrate on fixing F12 ?)
Matěj Cepl (mc...@redhat.com) said: > Moreover, I don't know what's your problem with radeonhd driver in > Fedora. Hanz does IMHO excellent job on maintaining it and it > doesn't drag much additional resources on anybody (except on me, > perhaps, because I triage bugs for him as well, which is the reason > that this time I even a little know what I am talking about ;)). And > of course comparing -radeonhd bugs (http://is.gd/59Hc0) with -ati > bugs (http://is.gd/59Hp0) is unfair, because there are many more > users of -ati driver, but at least it shows that radeonhd is really > not burning issue. > > What's the problem? Does not work at all with KMS, which is on by default; is unsupported by the people that maintain the servers and the rest of the drivers. Following a sane OAOO strategy, we'll get better results if we try and get all fixes on a single driver path moving forwards. Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Blocking radeonhd (was Re: Fedora 12 Graphics Issues: Cancel F13 and concentrate on fixing F12 ?)
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:35:52 -0500 Bill Nottingham wrote: [ radeonhd vs radeon ] > So, if our X maintainers won't handle bugs with it, we have a working > default alternative that is maintained upstream, and it's *known* to > be broken in the default configuration, why ship it? If we're trying > to focus on quality, I'm not sure why we'd ship something that's known > broken. > > Hans, are you OK if we block this from rawhide? >From where I stand, there are a number of reasons both for and against having a radeonhd package in Fedora. Most of those reasons will have different importance for different people. The reasons I see for having radeonhd in Fedora all boil down to radeonhd and radeon containing different sets of bugs, and triggering different sets of bugs in other software components (and probably also hardware). Often, those issues can be hard to find if the exact hardware is not available to the developers, and thus take quite long to fix. See e.g. http://airlied.livejournal.com/68550.html There have always been cases of one driver working for people while the other does not, and vice versa. The complexity of the whole graphics system suggests this will probably not change soon. For keeping radeonhd in Fedora K1. Giving users a working system using the other driver during the weeks or months needed to fix a bug in one of the drivers is good for users. K2. Easy availability of another driver to try makes locating the bug easier: Is the issue common to both drivers, or different or not present at all with the other. For blocking radeonhd from Fedora B1. Less work for me and Matej in bugzilla. B2. Less bugs mistakenly assigned to radeonhd by the reporters. B3. Lacking an alternative, the pressure to fix bugs with radeon would increase (and hopefully improve things). B4. radeonhd requires some nomodeset kernel parameter, depending on kernel version. As to the KMS issue, I do not see where to communicate to users that radeonhd needs KMS off but in README.fedora. radeonhd upstream do not support KMS. All that said, I have been mostly running radeon with nomodeset on my F11 system (ThinkPad T60, X1400/rv515) for the last few months, so for me personally, I would not lose much by radeonhd being removed from Fedora. I have not had an opportunity to test the state of affairs on F12 or even rawhide, and also have no R6xx, R7xx, R8xx chipsets, so I cannot comment on any of that. -- Hans Ulrich Niedermann -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Blocking radeonhd (was Re: Fedora 12 Graphics Issues: Cancel F13 and concentrate on fixing F12 ?)
Dne 1.12.2009 21:43, Bill Nottingham napsal(a): If the e1000 driver is broken in the kernel for some people, we don't support shipping an alternate driver. If a new version of the intel graphics driver is broken for some people, we don't support shipping a pre-KMS version of the driver. Why would we do differently here? Because if e1000 is broken, we can be sure with reasonably high level of certainity, it will be fixed without undue delay. For Xorg drivers (especially with regards to 3D support) we have hope that it will be slightly better in the next Fedora release, but complete coverage is still just a dream. Moreover, I don't know what's your problem with radeonhd driver in Fedora. Hanz does IMHO excellent job on maintaining it and it doesn't drag much additional resources on anybody (except on me, perhaps, because I triage bugs for him as well, which is the reason that this time I even a little know what I am talking about ;)). And of course comparing -radeonhd bugs (http://is.gd/59Hc0) with -ati bugs (http://is.gd/59Hp0) is unfair, because there are many more users of -ati driver, but at least it shows that radeonhd is really not burning issue. What's the problem? Matěj -- http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mceplceplovi.cz GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC Our lives are spectacles of powerlessness. -- Richard Rohr -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Blocking radeonhd (was Re: Fedora 12 Graphics Issues: Cancel F13 and concentrate on fixing F12 ?)
Ian Pilcher (arequip...@gmail.com) said: > On 12/01/2009 09:35 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > So, if our X maintainers won't handle bugs with it, we have a working > > default alternative that is maintained upstream, and it's *known* to > > be broken in the default configuration, why ship it? If we're trying to > > focus on quality, I'm not sure why we'd ship something that's known > > broken. > > Because the alternative may be more broken for some people? > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495688 If the e1000 driver is broken in the kernel for some people, we don't support shipping an alternate driver. If a new version of the intel graphics driver is broken for some people, we don't support shipping a pre-KMS version of the driver. Why would we do differently here? Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Blocking radeonhd (was Re: Fedora 12 Graphics Issues: Cancel F13 and concentrate on fixing F12 ?)
On 12/01/2009 09:35 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > So, if our X maintainers won't handle bugs with it, we have a working > default alternative that is maintained upstream, and it's *known* to > be broken in the default configuration, why ship it? If we're trying to > focus on quality, I'm not sure why we'd ship something that's known > broken. Because the alternative may be more broken for some people? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495688 -- Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
