Stephane Marchesin wrote: >> 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.
How on earth can you draw that conclusion from the above statement? > 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" > What GEM protagonists have been arguing and propagating for is not a single memory manager, but a single small common simple memory management interface to that would allow any driver writer to do pretty much what they want with their driver. As you might have noticed we're not really arguing against that. /Thomas ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
