-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
On Sep 13, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Matt Dew wrote:
<snip>
I understand the urge to slim the server down, but deprecating XAA
isn't the way to do this.
In order to deprecate something, there needs to be a replacement. As
others in this thread have stated, there is hardware for which EXA is
slower than XAA or does not work all together. So EXA is not a 1:1
replacement for XAA.
I can't see why being able to remove XAA (which would be the intended
goal of deprecating it) would help anything anyway. The xserver can
already be easily built without XAA.
Agreed that a replacement is needed before removing anything. I think
we're all in agreement there.
I'm not necessarily arguing for dumping XAA (I don't know enough for
that, hence my questions.). I'm just from the school of thought that
if two things are redundant, get rid of one of them. Less maintenance,
confusion, duplicated effort, ... If EXA could be made to be
performant on that hardware, I think getting rid of XAA would be a
good idea, for the pre-mentioned reasons. If it can't, then end of
discussion for me.
This would be a hell of a lot easier if EXA had an optional XAA-like
VRAM allocator which doesn't insist on variable strides. With that
alone converting most drivers would be almost trivial.
have fun
Michael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iQEVAwUBTI6r0MpnzkX8Yg2nAQIebAgAn1HZi8bX4uiTwddxlzugA4U+8hQdw4CQ
RBIaE6D7X0ZMllZw6UfBCeHO+uV5qRDuzc2DFq+8J4dopot0LKHYnVBZHLu82UZI
cw9d3JfYvI2PgbFpI+8mMG+Xz1cfWKMhwUuvaL0BTTy574jI4wonmMGMVQQrDV3v
f/CQl3NHuVTAFBTdzOkX3XfSfxqQCR7VKl2/+oN0AdF1pFt2W6kT0ytYMsg0pZzi
RAy91CSQzZwILvqbYN0SVm9EsAEtBZEQYzcKH3JxakDfCeU+r5i5rT8/LXOeMmBd
73aTtMrCTlPUf6l9rabgyf85VUguRkY7O6TaVWf6HKUCWz4/AcFIvA==
=gYVt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
