On 2002.04.21 03:35 Robert Lunnon wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 April 2002 09:46, José Fonseca wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > As the thread proceeded it become clear that there wasn't really a
> > interest in a long-term solution for 3D graphics on Solaris, and (after
> > reading the Utah-GLX archives) I also
On Wednesday 17 April 2002 09:46, José Fonseca wrote:
> For the record,
>
> I just want to say I'm really sorry for started this thread. When I did it
> I had hope to bring Robert Lunnon (which is currently working on the
> Utah-GLX's Mach64 driver) to join efforts, as I though he wasn't using DRI
For the record,
I just want to say I'm really sorry for started this thread. When I did it
I had hope to bring Robert Lunnon (which is currently working on the
Utah-GLX's Mach64 driver) to join efforts, as I though he wasn't using DRI
due to using Solaris.
As the thread proceeded it become cl
Knock yourself out Philip...you know what you are doing.
-- /\
Jens Owen/ \/\ _
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /\ \ \ Steamboat Springs, Colorado
___
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lis
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 04:17:49PM -0600, Jens Owen wrote:
> I haven't touched Solaris in over 6 years, but back in the day it was
> possible to provide a unique driver. This was done for Sun's high end
> 3D sparc platform and included kernel level support for page faults
> based context switchi
Philip Brown wrote:
> Okay, long email, in two section:
> "Solaris limitations", and "ease-of-porting issues". Neither of which strictly
> require changes to the drm API, but most of which require changes to
> underlying code.
Wow, the fact that the drm API could support this is great news. It
[Setting Cc to just the dri-devel list; this doesnt seem appropriate
to the utah-glx list.
(particularly since I'm the only solaris developer on it ;-)]
[Note also that I'm not subscribed to dri-devel, though]
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 09:44:39PM -0600, Jens Owen wrote:
> Philip Brown wrote:
> >
