Jon Smirl wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:49:14 -0700, Ian Romanick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon Smirl wrote:
Maybe we should fork linux-core into linux-core-2.4 and linux-core-2.6
before it drifts too far from being able to run on 2.4. I suspect
linux-core would compile on 2.4 right now with minor
Jon Smirl wrote:
I haven't moved anything out of shared, it's all paralleled in
shared-core. 90% of the changes are from DRM() macro removal. I did
eliminate one header file for each device since I kept deleting things
until they were empty.
2.4 is a bigger question to me. For example 2.6 is
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:49:14 -0700, Ian Romanick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon Smirl wrote:
Maybe we should fork linux-core into linux-core-2.4 and linux-core-2.6
before it drifts too far from being able to run on 2.4. I suspect
linux-core would compile on 2.4 right now with minor changes.
What do we want to do about drm-core vs the old build model?
There is no real difference between the code in the linux directory
and linux-core except for the removal of the DRM macros and the
associated restructuring needed to make everything work. When we get
linux-core working without
On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 16:52, Jon Smirl wrote:
What do we want to do about drm-core vs the old build model?
There is no real difference between the code in the linux directory
and linux-core except for the removal of the DRM macros and the
associated restructuring needed to make everything
I would prefer to see the changes for the core live in shared/ like
always and have the current directories disappear, but it's not a big
deal.
Merging the shared dirs is not a major undertaking, you could do it with
some static inlines in the platform directories to deal with the lack of
I haven't moved anything out of shared, it's all paralleled in
shared-core. 90% of the changes are from DRM() macro removal. I did
eliminate one header file for each device since I kept deleting things
until they were empty.
2.4 is a bigger question to me. For example 2.6 is adding the idr_xxx
