--- Ian Romanick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm aware of Sven's work, and I have been in contact with him. I > haven't persued getting docs form 3dlabs yet, but I may do so in the > future. IBM's lawyers are *VERY* picky, so getting docs under NDA > for > use in open-source projects is *VERY* difficult for IBMers. I still > don't have R100 or R200 docs, and I've been working on those drivers > for > over a year and a half. :(
Bummer. > > > <idr> fxkuehl: I have a Savage/IX (or something similar) in my > ThinkPad > > T21. > > ... > > <anholt> so is the savage4 the same sort of thing as a savage > mx/ix? > > ... > > <idr> anholt: I believe so. > > > > Actually the savage mx/ix chips are based on the old savage3D core, > > while the DRI driver is for savage4/prosavage cores. I don't know > how > > similar they are and whether the driver S3/VIA released will work > on > > the older savage3D based chips like the mx or ix. they might need > a > > separate driver much like the radeon r100 vs. r200. > > Are you sure about that? Once-upon-a-time I tried to get the old > Utah-GLX driver to work on it but had no luck at all. I was still > pretty green back then, but it didn't seem like the chips were very > compatible. The chip that I have, according to WinS3ID is "Savage/IX > > w/MV (294)". The chip ID is 0x8c12, subvendor 0x1014, subdevice > 0x017f. > This same chip is in all the IBM T20 & T21 laptops AFAIK. > > It's interesting that there's not even 3D acceleration for this > particular chip in Windows. That would be a nice open-source coup. > :) I'm agreeing with you :) I don't think the cores are compatible. The savage driver in utah-glx was for the savage3D, mx, ix. it did not support the savage4 core (as I recall). If you read the utah-glx archives, some of the current develpers have it running on a savage ix. the S3/VIA driver seems to only support the savage 4 core. If we ever get the DRI working on savage we'll probably have to pull from both (utah and S3) to get it working. I have a thinkpad t20 with a savage IX, and there was an opengl ICD for windows. It tried quake3, but it was real slow and crashed with in a few seconds. > > In any case, I would really *NOT* like to see another driver end up > like > the r100 / r200 driver. The MGA driver, where multiple chips in the > same family are supported by the same binary, is a much better model > to Is it worth trying to merged the two (down the road), or just leave them alone? > follow, IMHO. My plan with the 500TX driver is to eventually merge > it > with the gamma driver and re-name that driver to glint. gamma is a > very > bad name for that driver since the gamma isn't even really used! > Looking at the existing 500TX code, the existing gamma code, and > Sven's > work in the tdlabs branch, it seems like the drivers for all the > chips > in the GLINT family should be quite similar. That family may be the > poster child for a unified driver architecture. :) Sounds good! I can't wait! Alex __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
