On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 04:50, Jon Smirl wrote: > --- Michel Dnzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As Alan pointed out on IRC, it won't. But providing the means to do it > > I'm using code extracted from the reset function in Xfree. It seems to work for > Xfree, why shouldn't it work for me?
Where did I say it didn't work? XFree86 supports many more OSs than the DRM. > > cleanly is certainly good basically. The question is exactly where it > > belongs. I suggested to do this work on a branch for the time being, and > > got zero feedback. I don't know what that's supposed to mean; some > > people take silence as approval, but I don't. > > I have six months worth of code that I can't check in because it all relies on a > sequence of patches. I have so many patches I am getting confused and losing > code. I'm doing this work for fun, I'm not getting paid, and lately it hasn't > been too much fun. If changes to DRM are going to be blocked please tell me now > and I will go work on another project. Just do it on a branch? > It is obvious to me that the Longhorn desktop will be a generation ahead of > anything that Linux has to offer. A key MS decision was to build on top of > DirectX. The parallel on Linux is to bring up a standalone OpenGL/Mesa and then > implement xserver on top. If Linux is going to have a competitve offering then > we need to get standalone mesa working immediately in order to give the xserver > and higher layer people time to code. Surely this could be prototyped with something like Mesa solo, or with your work on a branch? > In the long run FB and DRM need to be merged into a single driver. Cooperative > multitasking of multiple device drivers on the same piece of hardware is a bad > design and it has happened for historical reasons. DRM was designed from the > beginning to handle multiple clients, DMA security, framebuffer memory > management, etc. It is much easier to pull FB functions into DRM than the other > way around. Easier maybe, but I don't think that the easiest solution is necessarily the best one. Linus has proposed a way for the two to cooperate using a common low-level driver. As Dave, I feel that this stuff would rather belong in that low-level driver than the DRM. > FB was built for a single user using a dumb 2D framebuffer. Leave it that way. > DRM is designed for a much more complex environment. I thought the DRM was designed to provide means to achieve direct _rendering_, not mode setting, card resetting, ..., but maybe that's just me. -- Earthling Michel DÃnzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Libre software enthusiast | http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
