On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote: > > In the original thread about this problem, you asked what the right > thing to do would be. I gave my opinion on that, basically option 1 > above. I still think that would be ideal, especially if done the way you > outlined, resulting in consistent behaviour between the major drivers. > But if you don't want to go the long way, I clarified above what I think > is the alternative that makes sense. That's all. >
OK, points taken. Option 1 would be ideal, but it will take time and get it reviewed with all concerned groups (X-server and at least three drivers) and to test the slew of use cases (different combinations of old/new DIX/DDX, three different platforms, etc.). Given many things I am (like all of us) juggling, I can put in some time slices here and there to work on this and send patches when I am ready. I can't commit on a delivery date, but I won't drop the ball either. In the meantime, option 2 seems pragmatic to me: it solves the acute problem, it can be very quickly ported to other drivers for consistent behavior (if need be), and it's simple. So I will be sending revised patches shortly (I already have them done locally) that will implement the option 2. If the above plan sounds acceptable, I would appreciate the inclusion of option-2 patches (barring finding any goofs that may have slipped my eye). It will get the first step of the fix exposed to users and therefore tested by more people and at least the imminent issue will be mitigated for one class of GPUs. thanks, Ilija _______________________________________________ xorg-driver-ati mailing list xorg-driver-ati@lists.x.org http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-driver-ati