i830 driver status..

2004-07-16 Thread Dave Airlie
Is the i830 driver considered to be dead, should any future work go towards the i915 one? just like to get a semi-official idea? if so we need to import the up to date DDX into the DRI tree and start releasing the snapshots for the i915 driver.. I'm bringing over some fixes for the i915 from

[Bug 872]

2004-07-16 Thread bugzilla-daemon
OpenGL applications do not draw or draw strangely when using SiS DRI X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.

Re: i830 driver status..

2004-07-16 Thread Alan Hourihane
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 08:22:42AM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote: Is the i830 driver considered to be dead, should any future work go towards the i915 one? I think you can deem the i830 driver dead, and the i915 superceeds it. All future work should go to the i915 driver. Alan.

[Bug 872]

2004-07-16 Thread bugzilla-daemon
OpenGL applications do not draw or draw strangely when using SiS DRI X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.

Re: i830 driver status..

2004-07-16 Thread Alex Deucher
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:22:42 +0100 (IST), Dave Airlie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is the i830 driver considered to be dead, should any future work go towards the i915 one? just like to get a semi-official idea? if so we need to import the up to date DDX into the DRI tree and start releasing

Re: i830 driver status..

2004-07-16 Thread Eric Anholt
On Fri, 2004-07-16 at 06:06, Alex Deucher wrote: On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:22:42 +0100 (IST), Dave Airlie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is the i830 driver considered to be dead, should any future work go towards the i915 one? just like to get a semi-official idea? if so we need to import the

future of DRI DDX

2004-07-16 Thread Alex Deucher
Is it worth continuing to support a separate DDX tree for the DRI? In my opinion, it would be easier for the DRI to just use XORG for DDX. Any thoughts/opinions one way or another? I know idr may have some issues with a different tree. Alex

Re: i830 driver status..

2004-07-16 Thread Mike A. Harris
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Alex Deucher wrote: Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:06:26 -0400 From: Alex Deucher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dave Airlie [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: i830 driver status.. On Thu, 15 Jul

Re: [Xorg] future of DRI DDX

2004-07-16 Thread Ian Romanick
Alex Deucher wrote: Is it worth continuing to support a separate DDX tree for the DRI? In my opinion, it would be easier for the DRI to just use XORG for DDX. Any thoughts/opinions one way or another? I know idr may have some issues with a different tree. That shouldn't be a problem. I can't

Re: TLS support (finally!)

2004-07-16 Thread Dieter Ntzel
Am Sonntag, 11. Juli 2004 21:10 schrieb Ian Romanick: These two patches cooperate to enable TLS support. For now you much manually add #define GlxUseThreadLocalStorage YES to your host.def to enable TLS support. Apply the Mesa patch to the Mesa tree and the DRI patch to the DRI tree. Right