On Gwe, 2004-09-10 at 23:19, Dave Airlie wrote:
If the kernel developers can address this point I would be most interested, in fact I don't want to hear any more about sharing lowlevel VGA device drivers until someone addresses why it is acceptable to have two separate driver driving the same hardware for video and not for anything else.. (remembering graphics cards are not-multifunction cards - like Christoph used as an example before - 2d/3d are not separate functions...)...
We've addressed this before. Zillions of drivers provide multiple
functions to multiple higher level subsystems. They don't all have to
be compiled together to make it work.
2D and 3D _are_ to most intents and purposes different functions. They are as different as IDE CD and IDE disk if not more so.
This depends to a great deal what you mean by 2D. The idea of a blitter or dedicated 2D acceleration engine is rapidly becoming history. Several cards currently ship without one, and I expect to see that become the norm in future.
But if you define 2D to include things like mode setting, etc, and not any acceleration, then the split sortof works.
It might be better to call the components different names, like "configuration" and "acceleration".
Keith
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170
Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on
who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM. Deadline: Sept. 13. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
