On Tuesday 05 March 2002 10:45, Jeff Hartmann wrote: > I have no problem accepting the agpgart change, and I think its cleaner. > We might want to modify that patch in the future so the old behavior > can be selected, but thats not a big deal for now. > > Btw, do you have a working driver for the HP IA64 chipset? If you do, > it might make sense to submit it to Linus and the 2.4 maintainer (I > forget his name) at the same time you submit the patch. It makes things > more likely to be included. If you find you need assistance getting the > patch into the kernel (i.e. they ignore your patches), I can submit them > for you.
Yes, I do have a driver for the HP chipset, but I don't have a strategy for getting it upstream yet. It depends on a bunch of other stuff that is only in David Mosberger's IA64 tree, so my thought was that I would get the driver into the IA64 patch first. (The 460GX driver is in the same situation -- it's in the IA64 patch only.) I could push the page_mask changes to the IA64 patch at the same time, but David's preference was to put it straight into 2.4.x/2.5.x because it isn't IA64-specific. I do agree that it makes sense to bundle them with the 460GX and HP GART drivers because the justification is clearer. Actually, I'm starting to convince myself that pushing it into the IA64 patch along with the driver is the correct approach. Without the 460GX GART driver, there's no benefit to 2.4.x/2.5.x, only risk, so why would they bother with it? If you guys agree, I'll approach David again about putting it into the IA64 patch. -- Bjorn Helgaas - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Systems Operation R&D Hewlett-Packard _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
