Hey,
I have mach64 (or technically rage pro! why'd he call it mach64??) in my
desktop, and I will be getting a k6-2 550 tomarrow so I'll have a better
test platform (with kernel.org messing up cyrix arr, and 3dnow so
essential...). I've actually had the code working on this platform
twice, and I will try testing it out again sometime next week.
Carl Busjahn
Jeremy W. Bean wrote:
>On Sunday 17 June 2001 09:58, you wrote:
>
>>Hello. Once again I try to get any answer about Mach64 DRI development.
>>Is there any work in progress? Is the development for the Mach64 dead?
>>
>>It's really sad, but I've been waiting for one year and no progress have
>>been made or I haven't been told about it. Has anybody merged the main
>>trunk into the mach64 branch?
>>
>>I know that the Mach64 is no state-of-art, but a lot of laptops are still
>>wearing one of these cards.
>>
>>Is there any way to help in the development of this driver? I've never
>>coded a driver and the huge XFree trunk afraids me, but, anyway, I should
>>try to help if somebody could help me with the first steps: Where to find
>>information about the chip? Where to find some templates or architectural
>>information about DRI,...
>>
>>I think the DRI development group is making a good work. It's a pitty I
>>can't see the results in my old graphic card.
>>
>>Best regards.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Dri-devel mailing list
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
>>
>
>Manuel,
> I know the feeling. There are quite a few laptops that still use Mach64
>chips. And for a laptop which doesn't need amazing high-end graphics, it
>works very nice. As well consider the fact that it is not common to upgrade
>a video card in a laptop, which kind of implies that if you want the latest
>and greatest in accelerated gaming you would more commonly buy a new laptop
>every six months or so. From what I can tell there has not been any
>progress. I have the trunk and the mach64 branch both checked out. I have
>been attempting to learn as much as I can from ground up so that I can
>eventually help out in some way. In fact I had planned to merge the trunk
>into my copy of the mach64 branch this weekend but never got the time. I
>have many other things going on and only get a chance to tinker with things
>in my spare time.
> Agreed, having chip specs would be very nice. But from what I can tell ati
>requires you to register with them as a company and this is just me doing
>this for fun, there is no company involved and no profit involved. Does
>anyone else know how to get specs from ATI without a hastle? Am I wrong in
>my preception of how to get the specs?
> There are some real good documentation pointers off the DRI website, that
>give the general workings of the architecture and what is going on. In
>theory with all of that and with the actual code, it should not be too
>difficult to learn. That is what I am doing. Starting from the bottom,
>reading all the documentation, and checking out the code to fill in the
>blanks of how things are working. But like I said, progress has been slow.
>Right now, I am mostly just reading and trying to learn. And I am doing this
>is spare time between other things.
> I can definitly understand why development isn't funded for Mach64; but I am
>amazed that someone hasn't picked this code up yet and attempted to hack
>something together that works decently well. I suppose the learning curve
>and lack of Mach64 documentation are large deterents.
> Hopefully eventually Mach64 will be accelerated. Let's just hope the chip
>isn't truly obsolete before then :)
>
>Sincerely,
>Jeremy Bean
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dri-devel mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
