On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Younes Manton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:12 AM, José Fonseca
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Younes Manton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> As an aside, is there any preferred directory structure people would
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:12 AM, José Fonseca
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Younes Manton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As an aside, is there any preferred directory structure people would
>> like to see for state trackers? Right now I'm using Nouveau's gallium
>> but
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Younes Manton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this would be a good time to speak up. My GSoC project
> involves writing a state tracker for XvMC, aside from the mesa state
> tracker I understand this is the only other public state tracker
> around. I don't have
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Brian Paul
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Airlie wrote:
> > Stephane wrote:
>>> Hi Brian,
>>>
>>> It seems like people are mostly concerned about gallium stability
>>> right now. How stable wioll the interfaces be in the future ? Maybe if
>>> you could tell us, t
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:39:35 +0200
Matthias Hopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That sounds *very* interesting. I guess this was only a quick first
> discussion, so there probably isn't any hard evidence (read: code or
> text ;) to share...
Well the idea is that we better have old userspace which is
On Jun 05, 08 00:36:12 +0200, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> Well i don't know anythings about r6xx but for radeon i was discussing
> with Dave a plan to add a new ioctl to submit packet in new cleaner way
> so that we can reuse current mesa driver with future memory manager enabled
> legacy free radeon dr
On Jun 04, 08 18:30:56 -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
> Gallium might ultimately wind up in its own repository as a stand-alone
> project. Afterall, Gallium drivers could be used by APIs other than OpenGL.
Yes, but the base project is called Mesa and not OpenGL. So that
wouldn't exactly stop that ;-)
On Jun 05, 08 00:39:26 +0200, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > I was envisioning a completely separate r600 DRI driver for r6xx+,
> > > since, if I understand correctly, the r6xx 3D engine is a completely new
> > > chip with nothing in common with the older Radeons. On the other hand,
> > > though, I hav
On Thursday 05 June 2008 12:47:07 am Dave Airlie wrote:
> > Gallium might ultimately wind up in its own repository as a stand-alone
> > project. Afterall, Gallium drivers could be used by APIs other than
> > OpenGL.
>
> The question is mainly from a distro point of view what do we need to ship
> a
>
> Gallium might ultimately wind up in its own repository as a stand-alone
> project. Afterall, Gallium drivers could be used by APIs other than OpenGL.
The question is mainly from a distro point of view what do we need to ship
a gallium driver. The current method would mean we need a Mesa t
Dave Airlie wrote:
> Stephane wrote:
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> It seems like people are mostly concerned about gallium stability
>> right now. How stable wioll the interfaces be in the future ? Maybe if
>> you could tell us, that'd help others jump in.
The gallium interfaces won't change radically, but
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> It seems like people are mostly concerned about gallium stability
> right now. How stable wioll the interfaces be in the future ? Maybe if
> you could tell us, that'd help others jump in.
Even when it might make it to master, is it planned to land in master..
I would assume Me
>
> If the new driver won't be an incremental change to the existing radeon
> drivers, I'd recommend basing it on Gallium.
>
Hi Brian,
It seems like people are mostly concerned about gallium stability
right now. How stable wioll the interfaces be in the future ? Maybe if
you could tell us, that'd
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:57:00 -0600
Brian Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Corbin Simpson wrote:
> > Matthias Hopf wrote:
> >> I'm in the process of skimming through the 3D programming documentation
> >> of the r6xx chips. AMD announced on XDC 2008 to make it public, so it
> >> will show up pretty
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 20:59:39 +0200
Matthias Hopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm in the process of skimming through the 3D programming documentation
> of the r6xx chips. AMD announced on XDC 2008 to make it public, so it
> will show up pretty soon. It's one massive beast, more than 650 pages...
>
>>Brian Paul wrote :
>>If the new driver won't be an incremental change to the existing
radeon
drivers, I'd recommend basing it on Gallium.
The driver will be an incremental change. The 6xx family is conceptually
different inside and there is a learning curve, but the basic
programming model is l
Corbin Simpson wrote:
> Matthias Hopf wrote:
>> I'm in the process of skimming through the 3D programming documentation
>> of the r6xx chips. AMD announced on XDC 2008 to make it public, so it
>> will show up pretty soon. It's one massive beast, more than 650 pages...
>>
>> Obviously, the first ste
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 12:30:20PM -0700, Corbin Simpson wrote:
>
> On the DRM side, Alex has added the r6xx microcode to the DRM, and it
> doesn't seem like it should be too much work to get it going, but again
> I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Uploading microcode is a pretty trivial job
Matthias Hopf wrote:
> I'm in the process of skimming through the 3D programming documentation
> of the r6xx chips. AMD announced on XDC 2008 to make it public, so it
> will show up pretty soon. It's one massive beast, more than 650 pages...
>
> Obviously, the first step to get 3D working on r6xx
19 matches
Mail list logo
