On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Timothy Miller wrote: > 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.
How is the drivers supposed to be shipped? I would very much like to see them as part of Xorg. > 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. I guess I can live with that, but perhaps one shouldn't count on people jumping for joy and starting to code on a driver, especially if that driver is totally different from what other drivers use (mesa/dri/drm). I think you would find the dri/drm people much happier and more willing to work with you if you supply them with some functional starting point (driver). I hope you can see what I mean... > We use XFree86 for our ATC and medical products, but our kernel driver > doesn't use DRI. These seem to be 2D, mainly. The pre-dri XFree < 4.x was also 2D. Dri was created to allow a fast path to the graphics card so that 3D could be fully utilised. Perhaps the mesa/dri/drm/glx/X is not the perfect "marriage" but so far it's the best we've got. Of course that doesn't mean I'm against progress. In fact I could see this card becoming a de-facto standard to test and implement new X extensions/protocols on. Btw, great interview! Best regards Peter K -- We Can Put an End to Word Attachments: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
