> > Jerome, Dave, Keith > > It's hard to argue against people trying things out and finding it's not > really what they want, so I'm not going to do that. > > The biggest argument (apart from the fencing) seems to be that people > thinks TTM stops them from doing what they want with the hardware, > although it seems like the Nouveau needs and Intel UMA needs are quite > opposite. In an open-source community where people work on things > because they want to, not being able to do what you want to is a bad thing,
What you fail to notice here is that I think most people intend to have only one memory manager in the kernel. So making the wrong decisions here will pretty much enforce those decisions on all drivers. And therefore, we will not be "able to do what you want to" > > OTOH a stall and disagreement about what's the best thing to use is > even worse. It confuses the users and it's particularly bad for people > trying to write drivers on a commercial basis. I don't see how the needs are opposed. A memory manager is just handling pieces of memory, and you should get some kind of flexibility from it, especially if it's going to be the de-facto memory manager for all DRI/X.Org. Stephane ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
