On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 09:02:46PM -0700, Mike Mestnik wrote:
>
> --- Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 20:47, Matt Sealey wrote:
> > > Linux basically falls behind on two simple fronts at the moment:
> > > it has no "simple" 2D or 3D framework capable of much more than
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 09:24:24PM +0100, Matt Sealey wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Alan Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 13 June 2004 20:04
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: Jon Smirl; Eric Anholt; Alex Deucher; DRI Devel;
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: [Xorg] D
What are you talking about??
look...
radeon == radeon;
radeon:r200 != radeon; /* don't fix it if it ant broke */
For ANY driver that is broke. A simple Makefile update to 'ln -s radeon
radeon:r200' gets done where we replace "radeon" with "radeon:r200"(The
calling funtion) and NOT where "radeon"
Yes, is this not the esiest way to extend the protocol, by adding a new
field to a string value?
--- Eric Anholt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 20:34, Mike Mestnik wrote:
> > Ohh, is it realy that hard of a feature to add??
> >
> > foo:bar
> >
> > Old systems try to open "/fo
Non DRI systems don't support DRI and have XAA instead. We should be free
to 'rm -rf' any thing we can replace with something better.
I can see XAA getting moved into Mesa(YUCK), but it's posible to do all 2d
drawing via OGL calls with a modified Xserver.
--- Keith Packard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
The second half of the first paragraph controdics with the first. There
are patches and the like avalible.
The second sentance is refering to the hotplug code, only needed for multi
cards(currently not suported)? Or did you mean something else.
Your right about adding interfaces into the kernel
--- Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 20:47, Matt Sealey wrote:
> > Linux basically falls behind on two simple fronts at the moment:
> > it has no "simple" 2D or 3D framework capable of much more than
>
> I deal with embedded Linux people on a daily basis. I think they w
On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 20:34, Mike Mestnik wrote:
> Ohh, is it realy that hard of a feature to add??
>
> foo:bar
>
> Old systems try to open "/foo:bar_dri.so" and maby thay will fail or
> there will be a symlink there. A simpl parser could be added, making a
> new system pars for the ':' and try
--- Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 03:07, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > Why not help getting mesa-solo working so that we can move to X on top
> of
> > OpenGL?
>
> For one, in the two years that is going to take to bear fruit, we need a
> working X server. Two because mesa-sol
--- Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 22:58, Mike Mestnik wrote:
> > The DRM is a kernel driver that allowes the user-apps to use a 3D
> cards
> > API. Fbdev is smaller then the DRM and will be asimulated and it's
> > functions emulated or replaced.
>
> In the shorter
Ohh I get it, on non dri OSes there is a PROFORMANCE LOSS!!!
--- Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 22:58, Mike Mestnik wrote:
> > The DRM is a kernel driver that allowes the user-apps to use a 3D
> cards
> > API. Fbdev is smaller then the DRM and will be asimulated and i
Ohh, is it realy that hard of a feature to add??
foo:bar
Old systems try to open "/foo:bar_dri.so" and maby thay will fail or
there will be a symlink there. A simpl parser could be added, making a
new system pars for the ':' and try each one.
--- Ian Romanick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex D
Please do not reply to this email: if you want to comment on the bug, go to
the URL shown below and enter your comments there.
http://bugs.xfree86.org/show_bug.cgi?id=314
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-06-14 18:16 ---
Could anybody tel
Roland Scheidegger wrote:
Dieter Nützel wrote:
Am Montag, 14. Juni 2004 17:25 schrieb Dieter Nützel:
Am Montag, 14. Juni 2004 13:42 schrieb Dave Airlie:
texcmp isn't working for me but I can't see what is wrong on my
machine,
something may have broken it recently...
it no longer for me prints the
Ryan Underwood wrote:
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 01:34:58AM +0200, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to know where is the texture compression now?
Has it been integrated to the mesa tree or is it still provided in a
separate library ?
It is still in a separate library, th
Dieter Nützel wrote:
Am Montag, 14. Juni 2004 17:25 schrieb Dieter Nützel:
Am Montag, 14. Juni 2004 13:42 schrieb Dave Airlie:
texcmp isn't working for me but I can't see what is wrong on my machine,
something may have broken it recently...
it no longer for me prints the extra info ..
You mean the
This is just a friendly reminder that the weekly dri-devel IRC meeting will
be starting in the #dri-devel channel on irc.freenode.net at 2100 UTC (or
5:00PM EDT or 2:00PM PDT, if you prefer).
Time zone conversion available at:
http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc
Logs of previous IR
Now that *IS* interesting. I was looking at Cairo for the
internals of an SVG renderer, the pluggable backends was
what piqued my interest in the first place.
Sure.. if there was kernel arbitration for all the features
of Cairo needed, accelerated on the graphics card, that would
be a cool soluti
> Why not help getting mesa-solo working so that we can move to X on top of
> OpenGL?
Where can I find more information about mesa-solo? Is this the same as
miniglx?
> Keithp is hard at work converting xserver to run on OpenGL. We already
> have the render engine on top of of OpenGL finished in t
Alex Deucher wrote:
Sorry for the top reply, but I couldn't get the formatting right.
Anyway, perhaps we could use the 3d driver name to differenciate
between the drivers: via_dri.so - closed source; unichrome_dri.so -
open source. we could then have the DDX probe for one first then the
other or
Hi
Ian Romanick wrote:
Where can I get / how can I build a DDX driver for the Unichrome
chipset that will work with the DRI drivers? I tried just pulling the
code from unichorme.sf.net's xfree86 module into
xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/drivers/via in my DRI tree. I couldn't
get that to buil
Sorry for the top reply, but I couldn't get the formatting right.
Anyway, perhaps we could use the 3d driver name to differenciate
between the drivers: via_dri.so - closed source; unichrome_dri.so -
open source. we could then have the DDX probe for one first then the
other or we could add an opti
On Iau, 2004-06-10 at 20:50, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> O.k. I've popped the 2D ddx into XFree86's CVS, followed up by a merge
> of a snapshot of Mesa 6.1 from back in March time. Along with that, I've
> also merged in the latest DRM kernel modules in XFree86's tree as well.
Is the 915 driver code li
Hi!
Ian Romanick wrote:
Thomas
Hellstrom wrote:
Ian Romanick wrote:
Where can I get / how can I build a DDX
driver for the Unichrome chipset that will work with the DRI drivers?
I tried just pulling the code from unichorme.sf.net's xfree86 module
into xc/programs/Xserver/hw
Around 10 o'clock on Jun 14, "Matt Sealey" wrote:
> I half-baked agree with you! I am just looking for an accelerated
> 2D API that isn't permanently in testing and isn't X.
I'd like to think that cairo fits in this space; it's not X specific and
has acceleratable back-ends for GL and X.
-keit
Am Montag, 14. Juni 2004 17:25 schrieb Dieter Nützel:
> Am Montag, 14. Juni 2004 13:42 schrieb Dave Airlie:
> > texcmp isn't working for me but I can't see what is wrong on my machine,
> > something may have broken it recently...
> >
> > it no longer for me prints the extra info ..
>
> You mean the
Am Montag, 14. Juni 2004 13:42 schrieb Dave Airlie:
> texcmp isn't working for me but I can't see what is wrong on my machine,
> something may have broken it recently...
>
> it no longer for me prints the extra info ..
You mean the text which mode is running?
Works fine on r200.
Apart from texcy
On Iau, 2004-06-10 at 10:46, Dave Airlie wrote:
> okay I've checked this into the drm bk tree and DRM CVS, I've no way to
> test it apart from visual inspection and it compiles, I've asked Linus to
> sync the drm tree again, I probably need to add some __user annotations in
> a few places..
I've g
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:01:59 +0100
Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Of course, it's not for me to say how X.org (or XFree86) should be developed,
> but it does seem like the X development to be done by developers formerly
> known as DRI doesn't differ in any huge respect from t
>
> the code that works out the offsets and stuff is bogus for the i830
> with compressed textures... I've no idea what it should look like really
> :-) the intel hardware stores things differently than other things, and
> relies on the pitch and stuff.. I've no docs (and the NDA my company is
> un
Please do not reply to this email: if you want to comment on the bug, go to
the URL shown below and enter your comments there.
http://freedesktop.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=733
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-06-14 06:11 ---
(In reply to comment #
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 05:39:12PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
>
> Around 20 o'clock on Jun 13, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Secondly every line of code you put in the kernel has to be audited,
> > analysed and can introduce security holes or crash the machine.
>
> The same is (alas) all too true for c
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 16:34, Jon Smirl wrote:
> The Microsoft Longhorn UI is going to trounce Linux on the desktop if we don't
> get to work on a response. Getting mesa-solo running everywhere wouldn't take
> two years if more people would pitch in and quit arguing. Right now we should
> have a wor
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 22:41, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On modern processors the user/system transition is minor compared to the time
> needed for a bitblt over the PCI bus.
As a percentage of system time the user/system transition cost has been
rising not falling on x86 processors. Its especially bad wh
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 20:47, Matt Sealey wrote:
> Linux basically falls behind on two simple fronts at the moment:
> it has no "simple" 2D or 3D framework capable of much more than
I deal with embedded Linux people on a daily basis. I think they would
disagree. For 2D it has several in heavy use
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 03:07, Jon Smirl wrote:
> Why not help getting mesa-solo working so that we can move to X on top of
> OpenGL?
For one, in the two years that is going to take to bear fruit, we need a
working X server. Two because mesa-solo isnt supported on most of
the Xorg platforms.
Alan
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 20:35, Jon Smirl wrote:
> The work that would be wasted is extending the XAA 2D drivers to use the 3D
> hardware to accelerate render.
Lots of hardware can do render without 3D operations. Even my
TV capture/playback card has blit-with-alpha on it. Extending existing
XAA dri
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 20:20, Torgeir Veimo wrote:
> At least he is trying. There's no need for bashing people who try to
> implement new ideas.
I'm not. I'd rather he listened to new ideas and took feedback but that
is his business and the community has ways of dealing with that problem
that work
On Sul, 2004-06-13 at 22:58, Mike Mestnik wrote:
> The DRM is a kernel driver that allowes the user-apps to use a 3D cards
> API. Fbdev is smaller then the DRM and will be asimulated and it's
> functions emulated or replaced.
On Linux and FreeBSD only, and there isnt yet a consensus on the
Fbdev
On Sad, 2004-06-12 at 00:53, Ian Romanick wrote:
> I think I would actually prefer it if the 3D were named unichrome_dri.so
> and the DDX were changed. The reason being that there will likely be
> future "via" chipsets that may share the 2D driver but not the 3D. The
> current situation of ati
texcmp isn't working for me but I can't see what is wrong on my machine,
something may have broken it recently...
it no longer for me prints the extra info ..
can someone test it on a radeon?
Dave.
--
David Airlie, Software Engineer
http://www.skynet.ie/~airlied / airlied at skynet.ie
pam_smb
Eric Anholt wrote:
I am definitely in favor of the DRI X tree stuff being a branch on the
X.Org tree.
I'd prefer to look at it slightly differently:
1) I'd like to get the current work in the DRI tree to a stable state, meaning:
a) finish (or part finish) Ian's NEW_INTERFACE work
b) import a stab
> -Original Message-
> From: Ryan Underwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 14 June 2004 05:40
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Jon Smirl; Alan Cox; Eric Anholt; Alex Deucher; DRI Devel;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Xorg] DRI merging
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 10:42:58PM -0700, Jon Smirl wrote:
> X on GL won't ship anywhere for at least a year. It will probably be two years
> before it is in wide spread use. You can get good 3D cards for $35 now, in two
> years due to Longhorn all systems will be shipping with them.
So? My siste
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 08:00:59AM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > So? My sister still uses a P120, and is happy with it. Why should she be
> > > forced to upgrade?
>
> I think that is a bit petty really, please try and keep this
> discussion some way in the bounds of logic, at some point you have
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 10:07:59PM -0700, Jon Smirl wrote:
> X on GL has no impact on remote X. Tests with glitz show a 100:1 speed
> improvement for local drawing.
... on 3D-heavy cards, no?
I wonder what those same tests would show for the S3 Trio64 my sister
runs, or the ATI RageIIC my mother
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 11:44:06PM -0700, Jon Smirl wrote:
> --- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 10:42:58PM -0700, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > > X on GL won't ship anywhere for at least a year. It will probably be two
> > years
> > > before it is in wide spread use. You
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 12:13:43PM -0700, Jon Smirl wrote:
> So if my ideas are so bad, why don't you propose your own solution to the
> Longhorn problem? I have no attachment to anything I've proposed, I'll work on
> any solution that solves the main problem.
Project Utopia, fixing window manager
On 14-Jun-2004, Dave Airlie wrote:
>
> > > So? My sister still uses a P120, and is happy with it. Why should she be
> > > forced to upgrade?
>
> I think that is a bit petty really, please try and keep this
> discussion some way in the bounds of logic, at some point you have to
> throw away older
> > So? My sister still uses a P120, and is happy with it. Why should she be
> > forced to upgrade?
I think that is a bit petty really, please try and keep this
discussion some way in the bounds of logic, at some point you have to
throw away older systems, X works on these systems now, we want to
50 matches
Mail list logo
