David Bronaugh wrote:
Tomas Carnecky wrote:
David Bronaugh wrote:
Another option would be to design a generic, more low-level wrapper
for graphics hardware. In my opinion this is a huge undertaking (ever
read chip docs? You try integrating 3000 pages of information (that
would be around 5
--- Tomas Carnecky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Bronaugh wrote:
Tomas Carnecky wrote:
David Bronaugh wrote:
Another option would be to design a generic, more low-level wrapper
for graphics hardware. In my opinion this is a huge undertaking
(ever
read chip docs? You try
Mike Mestnik wrote:
I think every thing Tomas Carnecky has said here about device driver
design is valid and dose apply to the DRM/dri. He may not know every
thing about system security, but we also all have our strangths and his
strangth is oviously device design. One way of interpeting what
On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 11:27, Tomas Carnecky wrote:
Each slash in 'Mesa/DRI/DRM' stands for an interface, which is more or
less predefined (for example drm_*.h in drivers/char/drm).
No, it's not. Ian pointed that out, so why bring it up again?
--
Earthling Michel Dnzer | Debian
On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 12:04, Tomas Carnecky wrote:
I just don't think there should be one interface for all devices, as it
is now with DRM.
No, there isn't. There just happen to be some things common to all
drivers.
The userspace dri driver is the only user of these kernel drivers.
No,
The idea is to reduce the kernel mod to nothing more then device
enumeration and detection.
However you solve it.. I don't care about how the kernel driver --
userspace driver interface is defined or implemented. I just don't think
there should be one interface for all devices, as it is
Michel Dnzer wrote:
The userspace dri driver is the only user of these kernel drivers.
No, there's also the DDX drivers, XvMC, ... and there could be more in
the future.
So you tell me that there are at least three (DRI/DDX/XvMC) libraries
which do basically the same thing?
If, and that's what
On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 14:14, Tomas Carnecky wrote:
Michel Dnzer wrote:
The userspace dri driver is the only user of these kernel drivers.
No, there's also the DDX drivers, XvMC, ... and there could be more in
the future.
So you tell me that there are at least three
Tomas Carnecky wrote:
Each slash in 'Mesa/DRI/DRM' stands for an interface, which is more or
less predefined (for example drm_*.h in drivers/char/drm).
Why not 'OpenGL/Hardware'?
Oh for cryin' out loud. Have you read ANYTHING about how the DRI
architecture works, or are you just here to divert
The dri/drm interface seems to be quite low-level. I heard somewhere
that different devices have quite different registers and work in a
quite different way. If it is true that it would be better to make a
more high-level interface where every driver can do it's stuff as it
needs. How much
The design priciple of the open-source drivers is that the kernel part
acts as nothing more than a conduit to shove bits into the chip.
It's the first time I hear that.
It is a good design principle for hardware with complicated interface.
Because of that, the interface is pretty raw and varies
Tomas Carnecky wrote:
Ian Romanick wrote:
Tomas Carnecky wrote:
The dri/drm interface seems to be quite low-level. I heard somewhere
that different devices have quite different registers and work in a
quite different way. If it is true that it would be better to make a
more high-level interface
David Bronaugh wrote:
A device driver is not just a wrapper around the device which gives you
access to the registers. Even the core components of your computer have
a nice interface (your harddisk controller: open/read/write/close etc).
You're speaking of a generic interface to the hardware. The
I think every thing Tomas Carnecky has said here about device driver
design is valid and dose apply to the DRM/dri. He may not know every
thing about system security, but we also all have our strangths and his
strangth is oviously device design. One way of interpeting what he is
trying to say
--- Tomas Carnecky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My idea is that every card creates a device node in /dev which can be
openend by anyone with appropriate rights. With each device is a
userspace library associated which has implemented the interface
functions (gl*). The interface between userspace
Tomas Carnecky wrote:
David Bronaugh wrote:
Another option would be to design a generic, more low-level wrapper
for graphics hardware. In my opinion this is a huge undertaking (ever
read chip docs? You try integrating 3000 pages of information (that
would be around 5 different chips)). However,
Tomas Carnecky wrote:
Ian Romanick wrote:
Tomas Carnecky wrote:
The dri/drm interface seems to be quite low-level. I heard somewhere
that different devices have quite different registers and work in a
quite different way. If it is true that it would be better to make a
more high-level interface
Ian Romanick wrote:
Nothing about DRI prevents a developer from choosing a different kernel
/ user split. Based on the size of their kernel modules, I'm pretty
sure that both 3dlabs and ATI made a different choice. However, they
support Linux only and they aren't distributed with the kernel
18 matches
Mail list logo
