On Wednesday 26 January 2005 11:48, Pierre Follet wrote:
I heard they already have 2D open source drivers, and their OpenGL drivers is based on MESA and DRI - in other words, it already seems to fit the requirements.
The 3D driver is closed. FYI, ATI's closed source driver is also based on the DRI. Being based on the DRI is basically worth nothing.
To be honest, I'm not even sure if we'll want to use DRI. We need the X server to be able to sleep while waiting on interrupts. We also need for the X server to be able to do most DMA without the ioctl overhead. If DRI doesn't give us exactly what we need for best performance, we'll need our own driver.
If the DRI folks want to rip apart our driver and add anything "missing" into DRI, all the power to them. But what we should produce for the prototypes is what works best for us, not necessarily what works in exactly the way everyone expects.
We use XFree86 for our ATC and medical products, but our kernel driver doesn't use DRI.
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
