Alan Hourihane wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 03:39:48PM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> > Eric Anholt wrote:
> > >
> > > Just to update you all on what I'm doing: I have just finished getting
> > > some of the 4.2.0 patches and drm-kmod (DRM kernel modules in the
> > > FreeBSD port/package system)
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 03:39:48PM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> Eric Anholt wrote:
> >
> > Just to update you all on what I'm doing: I have just finished getting
> > some of the 4.2.0 patches and drm-kmod (DRM kernel modules in the
> > FreeBSD port/package system) updates into the FreeBSD ports coll
Eric Anholt wrote:
>
> Just to update you all on what I'm doing: I have just finished getting
> some of the 4.2.0 patches and drm-kmod (DRM kernel modules in the
> FreeBSD port/package system) updates into the FreeBSD ports collection.
> At this point I think the biggest priority for FreeBSD is g
Just to update you all on what I'm doing: I have just finished getting
some of the 4.2.0 patches and drm-kmod (DRM kernel modules in the
FreeBSD port/package system) updates into the FreeBSD ports collection.
At this point I think the biggest priority for FreeBSD is getting mesa
4.0 working, hope
Keith Whitwell wrote:
>
> David Dawes wrote:
> >
> > I guess that if the HW-independent component is just a mechanism
> > for passing them transparently through to the kernel component (or
> > equivalent), then that is workable providing all different OS
> > implementations of the kernel componen
>
> This assumes that using OS-independent tokens (like those below),
> and any associated data structures, can be accepted by a HW-independent
> layer (drmCOMMAND) and executed correctly.
>
> I guess that if the HW-independent component is just a mechanism
> for passing them transparently thro
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 02:28:26PM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
>David, Alan, Jeff and Kevin,
>
>I understand you would prefer a class of modules that are both HW
>specific and OS specific. Currently, the number of OS's supporting the
>DRM is 2; and the number of OS's the IHV's care about is 1 (linux
David, Alan, Jeff and Kevin,
I understand you would prefer a class of modules that are both HW
specific and OS specific. Currently, the number of OS's supporting the
DRM is 2; and the number of OS's the IHV's care about is 1 (linux x86 to
be specific). So, there is no short term problem with pe
Alan Hourihane wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:22:40 -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
>
> I'll use the Linux DRM semantics which are:
> >
> > ( (direction) << 30 | (size) << 16 | (type) << 8 | (request) << 0 )
> >
> > where
> >
> > direction is: 0 for none, 1 for write, 2 for read and 3 for both
>
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 10:35:16AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> Alan Hourihane wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 08:03:29 -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> > > Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 08:38:20AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> > > > > I would like to move the device depe
Alan Hourihane wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 08:03:29 -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> > Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 08:38:20AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> > > > I would like to move the device dependent functionality currently
> > > > included in the drm library back in
Jeff Hartmann wrote:
> The basic point of this exercise is to make it so we can hot swap driver
> suites (or at least I'm pretty sure this is your goal.)
Yes.
> Why don't we just
> make each device have its own xfree module for its os specific part?
In an ideal world, we would have N OS indep
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 11:15:25 -0500, David Dawes wrote:
> I'm losing track of what the goal was with the changes. If it was
> to remove hw-specifics from the libdrm.a module, then I think Jeff's
> idea of pushing them into a separate HW-specific module is worth looking at.
> By doing this, it
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kevin E
Martin
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 8:25 AM
To: David Dawes
Cc: dri-devel
Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] Restoring DRM Library Device Independence
> I'm losing track of what the goal was
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 11:15:25AM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:31:40AM +, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:22:40 -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
>
> >Also, we should be able to hide the type in the Linux os support and
> >not need to pass this ?
> >
> >I'
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:31:40AM +, Alan Hourihane wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:22:40 -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
>Also, we should be able to hide the type in the Linux os support and
>not need to pass this ?
>
>I've just taken a closer look at the xf86drmRadeon.c code, and in
>drmRadeonC
To be a bit more specific the 2.4.x sound system now loads something
like (on my system)
soundcore.o ~ drm_core.o
cs46xx.o ~ drm_radeon.o
(plus codec modules)
Mike
Michael wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 10:13:04AM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > Linus is pretty clear that he
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 10:13:04AM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Linus is pretty clear that he'd only accept a single module per driver - ie a
> radeon.o, but not a drm_core.o + drm_radeon.o combo.
He hasn't seen alsa or usb then...:)
--
Michael.
__
> > > We can already load a kernel module based on name via drmOpenByName,
> > > we could just implement another drmSubOpenByName command to load the sub
> > > module based on it's name.
>
Sorry, got mixed up by this paragraph.
Keith
___
Dri-devel m
On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 10:13:04 +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Alan Hourihane wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:22:40 -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> > > Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:36:41PM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> > > > > I've made some headway on this to
Alan Hourihane wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:22:40 -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> > Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:36:41PM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> > > > I've made some headway on this today, and could use some feedback based
> > > > on your BSD experience. I've
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 07:22:40 -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> Alan Hourihane wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:36:41PM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> > > I've made some headway on this today, and could use some feedback based
> > > on your BSD experience. I've attempted to move the packing of
>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 10:25:18 -0800, Jeff Hartmann wrote:
> Heres just a thought...
>
> When we added the usage of device specific ioctls we just linked them into
> the drm library because that was convient at the time. I think keeping this
> code os dependant is probably a good idea. This gi
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jens Owen
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 6:23 AM
To: Alan Hourihane
Cc: dri-devel
Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] Restoring DRM Library Device Independence
Alan Hourihane wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2002
Alan Hourihane wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:36:41PM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> > I've made some headway on this today, and could use some feedback based
> > on your BSD experience. I've attempted to move the packing of
> > drmRadeonInitCP into the 2D ddx driver, and the main concern I'm
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:36:41PM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> I've made some headway on this today, and could use some feedback based
> on your BSD experience. I've attempted to move the packing of
> drmRadeonInitCP into the 2D ddx driver, and the main concern I'm seeing
> is the actual IOCTL requ
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002, Alan Hourihane wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 08:38:20AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> > I would like to move the device dependent functionality currently
> > included in the drm library back into the device driver layer.
> >
> > My objective is to make sure new driver suite
On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 08:03:29 -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> Alan Hourihane wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 08:38:20AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> > > I would like to move the device dependent functionality currently
> > > included in the drm library back into the device driver layer.
> > >
>
Alan Hourihane wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 08:38:20AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> > I would like to move the device dependent functionality currently
> > included in the drm library back into the device driver layer.
> >
> > My objective is to make sure new driver suites can be independently
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 08:38:20AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
> I would like to move the device dependent functionality currently
> included in the drm library back into the device driver layer.
>
> My objective is to make sure new driver suites can be independently
> released without stepping on an
I would like to move the device dependent functionality currently
included in the drm library back into the device driver layer.
My objective is to make sure new driver suites can be independently
released without stepping on any components needed by other driver
suites. Currently, libdrm contai
31 matches
Mail list logo
