On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:40:07 -0500, David Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:24:43PM +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 06:17:50PM -0500, David Dawes wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 05:12:29PM +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote: > >> >On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:59:15AM -0500, David Dawes wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 04:40:42PM +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote: > >> >> >On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 11:32:56AM -0500, David Dawes wrote: > >> >> >> It looks like the DRM kernel source in xc/extras/drm is broken and > >> >> >> incomplete, especially for BSD platforms. The Linux version only > >> >> >> appears to build for a narrow range of kernels, and this either > >> >> >> needs to be fixed, or the minimum kernel requirements enforced in > >> >> >> the Makefile. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Perhaps we'll have to roll back to an older version that does build? > >> >> > > >> >> >I suspect pulling in a newer snapshot would be better, although it's > >> >> >a little more complicated now because the drm has split out support > >> >> >for linux 2.4 and 2.6 kernels is separate subdirectories. > >> >> > >> >> Does the build automatically figure out which to use based on the > >> >> kernel version, and what range of kernels has it been verified on? > >> > > >> >No. > >> > >> Any imports/updates need to address our requirements in this regard. > > > >If we import the current DRM trunk code, there are three linux directories. > > > >1. linux for 2.4 kernels (monolithic) > >2. linux-2.6 for 2.6 kernels (monolithic) > >3. linux-core for 2.6 kernels with modular drm.ko and <driver>.ko > > > >and two for bsd > > > >1. bsd monolithic > >2. bsd-core modular as above > > > >The -core are the new ones going forward and which I believe has been > >merged in linux 2.6.11. > > > >So, for now the linux-2.6, linux and bsd directories are the ones to stick > >with for stability. But things are changing. > > > >There'll be necessary build tweaks to select which directories are needed. > > At this point in our release cycle, the priorities are: > > 1st: It builds/runs and is reasonably stable on a good range of platforms. > 2nd: It supports as many DRI features as possible consistent with the > first priority. > > I don't think that even changing from the existing single Linux directory > to two different kernel-specific directories is appropriate at this point > in our release cycle. The time for such a change was before the feature > freeze. > > If what we have now is too broken to be fixed without major structural > changes, then it will need to be rolled back.
why not just let the kernel provide the drm? Most if not all recent linux and bsd kernels (last few years) have drm support. The dri and ddx will adapt depending on what's available in the kernel. Alex > > David _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@XFree86.Org http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
