Re: [patch] post superioctl inteface removal.

Jerome Glisse wrote: > Kristian Høgsberg wrote: > >> On 10/18/07, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ... >> >> Doesn't Kristian changes to DRI interface (DRI2) already allow to clients to not care about front buffer. I mean if they all got private back buffer then

Re: [patch] post superioctl inteface removal.

> > There is also the following (i don't think it was mentioned before > > in this thread): > >card with 8Mo of ram (who the hell have such hw ? :)) > > I've got 40 of them :( > > All of our desktops have integrated Intel ( i845g ) chips, and the BIOS > has the option of stealing either 1MB

Re: [patch] post superioctl inteface removal.

On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 03:04 +0200, Jerome Glisse wrote: > There is also the following (i don't think it was mentioned before > in this thread): >card with 8Mo of ram (who the hell have such hw ? :)) I've got 40 of them :( All of our desktops have integrated Intel ( i845g ) chips, and the BIO

[Bug 12855] glean abort with "X Error of failed request: BadDrawable"

http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12855 --- Comment #2 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-10-18 19:16 PST --- Created an attachment (id=12115) --> (http://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=12115&action=view) xorg log -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userpr

[Bug 12855] glean abort with "X Error of failed request: BadDrawable"

http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12855 --- Comment #1 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-10-18 19:15 PST --- Created an attachment (id=12114) --> (http://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=12114&action=view) xorg conf -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userp

[Bug 12855] New: glean abort with "X Error of failed request: BadDrawable"

http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12855 Summary: glean abort with "X Error of failed request: BadDrawable" Product: Mesa Version: CVS Platform: Other OS/Version: Linux (All) Status: NEW Severity:

Re: [patch] post superioctl inteface removal.

Kristian Høgsberg wrote: > On 10/18/07, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > >>> Doesn't Kristian changes to DRI interface (DRI2) already allow to >>> clients to not care >>> about front buffer. I mean if they all got private back buffer then they >>> render into it. >>> But i might

[RFC] full suspend/resume support for i915 DRM driver

We seem to see a lot of bug reports along the lines of, "my machine resumes but I can't see X" or, "I can see X but only with a bright flashlight", etc. These sorts of problems are due to the fact that the X server isn't designed to do full state save/restore, and none of the available kernel driv

Re: [patch] post superioctl inteface removal.

On 10/18/07, Keith Whitwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > > Doesn't Kristian changes to DRI interface (DRI2) already allow to > > clients to not care > > about front buffer. I mean if they all got private back buffer then they > > render into it. > > But i might have misunderstood this. > > Yes,

Re: [patch] post superioctl inteface removal.

On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 07:55 +0800, Keith Packard wrote: > On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 16:40 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: > > > Turn off CRTCs > > Unpin old framebuffer > > Allocate new framebuffer > > Copy from old to new > > We needn't copy on resize, leaving us with allocate new, unpin old, pin > new, f

Re: [patch] post superioctl inteface removal.

Keith Whitwell wrote: > Jerome Glisse wrote: >> Keith Whitwell wrote: >>> Thomas Hellström wrote: >>> Hi, Eric. Eric Anholt wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> >>> > Can you clarify the operation being done where you move scanout > buffers > before unpinning them? That

Re: [patch] post superioctl inteface removal.

Jerome Glisse wrote: > Keith Whitwell wrote: >> Thomas Hellström wrote: >> >>> Hi, Eric. >>> >>> Eric Anholt wrote: >>> >> >> ... >> >> Can you clarify the operation being done where you move scanout buffers before unpinning them? That seems contradictory to me -- how are you >>

Re: [patch] post superioctl inteface removal.

Keith Whitwell wrote: > Thomas Hellström wrote: > >> Hi, Eric. >> >> Eric Anholt wrote: >> > > ... > > >>> Can you clarify the operation being done where you move scanout buffers >>> before unpinning them? That seems contradictory to me -- how are you >>> scanning out while the object i

Re: [patch] post superioctl inteface removal.

Thomas Hellström wrote: > Hi, Eric. > > Eric Anholt wrote: ... >> Can you clarify the operation being done where you move scanout buffers >> before unpinning them? That seems contradictory to me -- how are you >> scanning out while the object is being moved, and how are you >> considering it pi

Re: [patch] post superioctl inteface removal.

Hi, Eric. Eric Anholt wrote: >On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 11:32 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote: > > >>Dave Airlie wrote: >> >> DRM_BO_HINT_DONT_FENCE is implied, and use that instead of the set pin interface. We can perhaps rename it to drmBOSetStatus or something more suitable.