Hans Ulrich Niedermann (h...@n-dimensional.de) said:
The big issue is with KMS on using radeonhd is like shooting
yourself in the face. Either we need to patch radeonhd in Fedora to
not start with KMS enabled or remove it from the distro.
I am working on such a patch to radeonhd
On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 22:12:00 +0100
Hans Ulrich Niedermann h...@n-dimensional.de wrote:
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:20:20 +1000
Dave Airlie airl...@redhat.com wrote:
The big issue is with KMS on using radeonhd is like shooting
yourself in the face. Either we need to patch radeonhd in Fedora to
On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 10:35:52 -0500
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
[ radeonhd vs radeon ]
So, if our X maintainers won't handle bugs with it, we have a working
default alternative that is maintained upstream, and it's *known* to
be broken in the default configuration, why ship it? If
Matěj Cepl (mc...@redhat.com) said:
Moreover, I don't know what's your problem with radeonhd driver in
Fedora. Hanz does IMHO excellent job on maintaining it and it
doesn't drag much additional resources on anybody (except on me,
perhaps, because I triage bugs for him as well, which is the
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:20:20 +1000
Dave Airlie airl...@redhat.com wrote:
The big issue is with KMS on using radeonhd is like shooting yourself
in the face. Either we need to patch radeonhd in Fedora to not start
with KMS enabled or remove it from the distro.
I am working on such a patch to
Dave Airlie (airl...@redhat.com) said:
On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 08:07 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
Well, here's one graphics regression:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=540476
radeon.modeset=0 worked around the problem.
(I'm not sure if it's filed against the right
On 12/01/2009 09:35 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
So, if our X maintainers won't handle bugs with it, we have a working
default alternative that is maintained upstream, and it's *known* to
be broken in the default configuration, why ship it? If we're trying to
focus on quality, I'm not sure why
Ian Pilcher (arequip...@gmail.com) said:
On 12/01/2009 09:35 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
So, if our X maintainers won't handle bugs with it, we have a working
default alternative that is maintained upstream, and it's *known* to
be broken in the default configuration, why ship it? If we're
Dne 1.12.2009 21:43, Bill Nottingham napsal(a):
If the e1000 driver is broken in the kernel for some people, we don't support
shipping an alternate driver. If a new version of the intel graphics driver
is broken for some people, we don't support shipping a pre-KMS version
of the driver.
Why
