On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 23:20:14 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Fedora has been backporting drm (and nouveau) for a long time but it's > not so clear what means for RHEL. > > I think this is something we will also consider doing in Debian. A year > from now I expect nv to be dead and radeon UMS to be removed upstream, > making it impractical to backport new hardware support. Given that, the > maintenance burden for 2.6.33 drm should be lower. But this is really > outside my area of expertise and certainly not my decision to make. > For radeon it seems clear that we need the 2.6.33 code or stay with UMS, and nouveau is not in .32, so basically the question seems to be about i915. My impression is that 2.6.32 was quite bad, and 2.6.32.x has gotten it into a better shape (except for 8xx, but that's been broken for quite a while, and not just with kms, so...). Now if we're confident that either i915 in 2.6.33 is better than .32.9 already or that the regressions it introduces can be fixed in the next month or couple of months, then backporting drm from .33 seems like it would be a good thing to do for squeeze.
Cheers, Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
