On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 01:51:00PM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> But for a 2D only driver, DRI based 2D acceleration using DMA is
> more likely to be wasted effort than anything useful IMHO.
> That's probably why nobody has done it yet other than in the
> Radeon driver where it has a real good
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Ian Romanick wrote:
>> If DRI is disabled, then the Radeon driver will use the older
>> MMIO mechanism to do 2D acceleration. I don't know what if any
>> of the other drivers will use DRI for 2D or Xvideo currently,
>> however any hardware that supports using DMA/IRQ for 2D
>
Mike A. Harris wrote:
If DRI is disabled, then the Radeon driver will use the older
MMIO mechanism to do 2D acceleration. I don't know what if any
of the other drivers will use DRI for 2D or Xvideo currently,
however any hardware that supports using DMA/IRQ for 2D
accelration or other stuff theor
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:53:02 +0200, Emmanuel ALLAUD wrote:
>
>Hmm, replying to myself : I read that the DRI kernel module addresses
>certain issues with DMA/IRQ and others. Is there any good reason that
>would prevent 2D drivers to use the API provided by this module?
The primary reason is that
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Emmanuel ALLAUD wrote:
>> unavoidable to get out of the statu quo : M. Voijkovich asked about
>> the use of sched_yield() in order to wait for the FIFO to process a
>> big enough part of the DMA buffer before we try to refill it; his idea
>> was to smartly release the CPU b
Emmanuel ALLAUD wrote:
Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, David Fox wrote:
I think that the wisest approach is, instead of suggesting a kernel
module to the XFree86 folks, you do two things. First, suggest a
kernel module to the Linux folks that implements a protocol for
accessing
Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, David Fox wrote:
I think that the wisest approach is, instead of suggesting a kernel
module to the XFree86 folks, you do two things. First, suggest a kernel
module to the Linux folks that implements a protocol for accessing the
resource you are tr
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, David Fox wrote:
>I think that the wisest approach is, instead of suggesting a kernel
>module to the XFree86 folks, you do two things. First, suggest a kernel
>module to the Linux folks that implements a protocol for accessing the
>resource you are trying to use. Then you
I think that the wisest approach is, instead of suggesting a kernel
module to the XFree86 folks, you do two things. First, suggest a kernel
module to the Linux folks that implements a protocol for accessing the
resource you are trying to use. Then you go to the XFree86 folks and
suggest a mo
TR> You really need some way to identify the XFree86 server as
TR> "trusted". In Linux today, the only mechanism for doing that is
TR> suid root.
I'm sorry to repeat what I've already said, but it isn't. It could
very well be setgid xfree86, setgid hwaccess. Old SunOS had setgid
kmem for ps and
RJ> Judging from the large number of *flames* I got for suggesting it,
These weren't flames. They were fairly kind explanations.
A flame is something completely different -- you'll see if you hang
around some more ;-)
Juliusz
> Does the notion of a kernel module have ANY merit at all? Or was the
idea
> complete garbage?
Obviously your idea isn't complete rubbish, but you are preaching to a
very particular crowd, so you need to make sure you're ideas aren't
contrary to their personal biases, sad isn't it?
Ok, now tha
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 20:38:44 +, Raymond Jennings wrote:
>
>Oh well, I hope it was at least worth brainstorming.
Brainstorming is (almost) never a bad idea.
>
>XFree86 *might* wish to consider a "modulette" to cover things that userland
>CAN'T do, like AGP, DMA, IRQ, and so on.
AGP stuff ca
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 08:38:44PM +, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> Oh my!
>
> Judging from the large number of *flames* I got for suggesting it, I guess
> a kernel module for X is not such a good idea after all.
It is not that it is not a good idea to consider, it is just a topic
that pops up n
Oh my!
Judging from the large number of *flames* I got for suggesting it, I guess a
kernel module for X is not such a good idea after all.
Oh well, I hope it was at least worth brainstorming.
XFree86 *might* wish to consider a "modulette" to cover things that userland
CAN'T do, like AGP, DMA,
15 matches
Mail list logo
