On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:46:37PM +0100, Nicolai Haehnle wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> In
> >> particular, the Mesa core <-> classic driver split only makes sense if
> >> there are enough people who are actually working on those drivers who
> >> would support
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>> In
>> particular, the Mesa core <-> classic driver split only makes sense if
>> there are enough people who are actually working on those drivers who
>> would support the split. Otherwise, this is bound to lead straight
>> into hell.
>>
>> I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:33:02AM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
>>
>> I've been busy trying to get a release out the door, so I haven't looked
>> at these patches yet. I won't have a chance to look at the patches
>> until at least
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:33:02AM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I've been busy trying to get a release out the door, so I haven't looked
> at these patches yet. I won't have a chance to look at the patches
> until at least late next week. I als
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:44:39PM -0500, Bridgman, John wrote:
> Pulling drm back out of the kernel tree seems like a hard sell, but the
> ddx/mesa hw driver/libdrm set seemed like it might be a good candidate for
> grouping.
>
> I guess the core question is whether we expect the X-to-ddx and
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:26:03PM +0100, Nicolai Haehnle wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > So, identify the volatile interfaces, and the more stable interfaces,
> > and then isolate the volatile ones, and then you come to only one
> > conclusion.
>
> Except that
Nicolai Haehnle escribió:
> because we want to
> have the DRM in our codebase
Why?
--
__
| , , |
| / \ |
| ((__-^^-,-^^-__))O
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nicolai Haehnle wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>> So, identify the volatile interfaces, and the more stable interfaces,
>> and then isolate the volatile ones, and then you come to only one
>> conclusion.
>
> Except tha
> It may seem e.g. like the DRM interface is the worst because of rather large
> threads caused by certain kernel developer's problems, but that doesn't mean
> problems wouldn't be created by splitting other areas.
This would probably be best solved by merging libdrm into the Linux kernel tree.
ai Haehnle
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 1:26 PM
To: Luc Verhaegen
Cc: dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; mesa3d-...@lists.sourceforge.net;
x...@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Mesa3d-dev] DRI SDK and modularized drivers.
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> So, identify
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> So, identify the volatile interfaces, and the more stable interfaces,
> and then isolate the volatile ones, and then you come to only one
> conclusion.
Except that the Mesa core <-> classic driver interface also wants to
change from time to
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 01:28:28AM -0700, Corbin Simpson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:28:39AM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> Modularized dri drivers and an SDK enabled mesa tree are available in my
> >> personal git repos at http:/
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:28:39AM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>> Modularized dri drivers and an SDK enabled mesa tree are available in my
>> personal git repos at http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~libv/
>>
>> The SDK enabled mesa tree adds to the
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:28:39AM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> Modularized dri drivers and an SDK enabled mesa tree are available in my
> personal git repos at http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~libv/
>
> The SDK enabled mesa tree adds to the mesa build system to create shared
> libraries libmesadri
14 matches
Mail list logo
