On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 09:16:13 +1000, Dave Airlie <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Eric Anholt <[email protected]> wrote: > > For whatever libdrm knock-it-off-with-the-overallocation patch we settle > > on, it's going to trigger the bug with the 2D driver underallocating > > framebuffer memory on my 1440x900 laptop. I've pushed tested patches to > > both branches, and my plan is to roll point releases of those, and > > mention in the libdrm release notes whenever that happens that you'll > > want either 2.9.2, 2.10.1, 2.11, or > > d08782e1a17279092fa4027d98d25ef36a9f80e5 in your 2D driver. The > > alternative would be for libdrm to avoid good behavior unless the driver > > said it was ready to cope, but that seems messy when the fix is so > > trivial. > > Uggh, you've heard of ABIs? I'd rather we maintained them if we could.
It was certainly never my intention that "your BOs are all power of two sized" was part of the ABI. I figured with a 1-line patch to the buggy software and a mention in the release notes we'd be fine.
pgpzsxbKURxPc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
