Michel Dnzer wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 21:57, Ian Romanick wrote:
Michel Dnzer wrote:
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 18:52, Ian Romanick wrote:
Michel, does that INREG work for PCIGART as well?
No, good point, you need
INREG( RADEON_AIC_LO_ADDR ) + dri_priv-agpTexOffset
for that.
Okay, that would be
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 22:40, Ian Romanick wrote:
Michel Dnzer wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 21:57, Ian Romanick wrote:
Michel Dnzer wrote:
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 18:52, Ian Romanick wrote:
Michel, does that INREG work for PCIGART as well?
No, good point, you need
INREG(
On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 21:57, Ian Romanick wrote:
Michel Dnzer wrote:
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 18:52, Ian Romanick wrote:
Michel, does that INREG work for PCIGART as well?
No, good point, you need
INREG( RADEON_AIC_LO_ADDR ) + dri_priv-agpTexOffset
for that.
Okay, that would
Michel Dnzer wrote:
On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 18:52, Ian Romanick wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Ian Romanick wrote:
Michel Dnzer wrote:
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 22:41, Ian Romanick wrote:
1. I don't like the hard-coding of 2*1024*1024 as the size of the
indirect buffers. This was copied directly
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 09:52:25 -0700
Ian Romanick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Ian Romanick wrote:
Michel Dänzer wrote:
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 22:41, Ian Romanick wrote:
1. I don't like the hard-coding of 2*1024*1024 as the size of the
indirect buffers. This was
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Ian Romanick wrote:
Michel Dnzer wrote:
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 22:41, Ian Romanick wrote:
1. I don't like the hard-coding of 2*1024*1024 as the size of the
indirect buffers. This was copied directly from the R200 driver,
but I don't like it. We may want to change the size
Ian Romanick wrote:
Michel Dnzer wrote:
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 22:41, Ian Romanick wrote:
1. I don't like the hard-coding of 2*1024*1024 as the size of the
indirect buffers. This was copied directly from the R200 driver, but
I don't like it. We may want to change the size of this buffer at
Michel Dnzer wrote:
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 22:41, Ian Romanick wrote:
1. I don't like the hard-coding of 2*1024*1024 as the size of the
indirect buffers. This was copied directly from the R200 driver, but I
don't like it. We may want to change the size of this buffer at some
point, and
Jérôme Marant wrote:
Michel Dänzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, like that. And fishes appear as rectangles, as well as
trees.
BTW, does setting RADEON_AGPTEXTURING_FORCE_DISABLE work around it? If
so, Ian is working on fixing it.
I've tried export RADEON_AGPTEXTURING_FORCE_DISABLE=1 and it
Am 2003.07.29 22:41:30 +0200 schrieb(en) Ian Romanick:
...
2. I don't like the hackish handing of the pre-1.3 DRM case. Are there
other PCI IDs that need the 128MB offset? Do we even support the
pre-1.3 DRM anymore? If we don't support the pre-1.3 DRM (and don't
intend to fix the
Ian Romanick wrote:
Jérôme Marant wrote:
Michel Dänzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, like that. And fishes appear as rectangles, as well as
trees.
BTW, does setting RADEON_AGPTEXTURING_FORCE_DISABLE work around it? If
so, Ian is working on fixing it.
I've tried export
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 22:41, Ian Romanick wrote:
1. I don't like the hard-coding of 2*1024*1024 as the size of the
indirect buffers. This was copied directly from the R200 driver, but I
don't like it. We may want to change the size of this buffer at some
point, and hard-coding the
Michel Dänzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, like that. And fishes appear as rectangles, as well as
trees.
BTW, does setting RADEON_AGPTEXTURING_FORCE_DISABLE work around it? If
so, Ian is working on fixing it.
I've tried export RADEON_AGPTEXTURING_FORCE_DISABLE=1 and it seems
to works
On Sat, 2003-07-19 at 10:51, Jérôme Marant wrote:
Paul Zaremba [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried Tuxracer on a powerpc machine + an ATI 7500 (r200)
with a 20030504 snapshot of DRI (xlibmesa-gl1) and I experienced
glitches. I tried a 20030425 snapshot which
[ Please CC me on reply, I'm not subscribed ]
Paul Zaremba [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried Tuxracer on a powerpc machine + an ATI 7500 (r200)
with a 20030504 snapshot of DRI (xlibmesa-gl1) and I experienced
glitches. I tried a 20030425 snapshot which worked fine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ Please CC me on reply, I'm not subscribed ]
Hi,
I tried Tuxracer on a powerpc machine + an ATI 7500 (r200)
with a 20030504 snapshot of DRI (xlibmesa-gl1) and I experienced
glitches. I tried a 20030425 snapshot which worked fine (but much
slower IMO) so I guess
The dri-devel list may get this twice, I was using
a different email address than I had registered to send last time and it
is pending list administrator approval.
I registered my send address with the dri-devel list and am
re-sending this to the list (but not to jmarant - he already received
the
On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 13:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried Tuxracer on a powerpc machine + an ATI 7500 (r200)
BTW, the 7500 is an R100 core and hence doesn't use the r200 but the
radeon driver.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer
Software libre
Michel Dänzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 13:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I tried Tuxracer on a powerpc machine + an ATI 7500 (r200)
BTW, the 7500 is an R100 core and hence doesn't use the r200 but the
radeon driver.
Indeed, it is rv200, not r200.
--
Jérôme Marant
19 matches
Mail list logo
