> > Changing the drm and Mesa at once incompatibly isn't going to get past me,
> > and I haven't proven that Egberts patch isn't backwards compat, but nobody
> > has proven to me that it doesn't break anything, and as I have no access
> > to any 64-bit hardware it is up to other people to convince
Dave Airlie writes:
> How it has to work, is taking a current DRI 32-bit binary, build a drm
> that should support 64-bits.. see does it work with the current 32-bit
> one... then write a Mesa patch that supports 64-bits and make it work on
> the drm you just made... also take a 64-bit pure drm an
>
> First off, has anyone updated the patch lately?
Nope, I think it needs to go back to the drawing board...
The biggest problem with SuSEs patch is that is was written by the looks
of it to cover the DRM and Mesa making changes to both to achieve the
solution, this isn't a way to acheive backwa
I have been looking through Egbert Eich's patch to add 32-bit
compatibility code for the DRM ioctls on 64-bit platforms.
First off, has anyone updated the patch lately?
The patch adds an extra field to the drm_map_t to handle the problem
of the `handle' field being basically a kernel virtual addr
