On Sat, 11 Sep 2004, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:13:17 -0700 (PDT), Linus Torvalds
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So I'd much rather see the "hey, somebody else might have stolen my
> > hardware, and now I need to re-initialize" as the _basic_ model. That just
> > allows others to do their own thing, and play well together. More
> > importantly, it allows the existing status quo, which means that if we
> > take that as the basic approach, we _never_ have to make a complete flag
> > day when we switch over to "_this_ driver does everything". See?
>
> We already have a mechanism for this: suspend/resume.
Jon, you're not making sense any more.
This discussion is just ridiculous, and I don't think it's worth cc'ing me
if people can't try to work together, since I'm sadly not going to have
time to actually implement any of this myself.
If you are claiming that we should suspend/resume the whole chip just
because two different programs want to access it, you're just crazy.
We clearly _do_ have different subsystems already working together
accessign the same chip, and they are _not_ doing stupid things like you
are suggesting. They _work_. Today. No suspend/resume involved.
That interaction has some troubles, and we're trying to _fix_ them. We're
not trying to make idiotic statments.
Yours was a singularly idiotic statment.
Linus
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170
Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on
who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM.
Deadline: Sept. 13. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
