On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 01:38:36AM +0100, Michel Dnzer wrote:
BEFORE the if, X load sinks by about 20% during video playing, BOTH when
using dri (25-5) or not using DRI (50-30)
When I put it AFTER the if, the load doesn't change (25 with dri, 50 without).
Hmm. I don't suppose the R128DMA()
On 2002.02.22 09:08 Sergey V. Udaltsov wrote:
No, DMA isn't yet done. Frank Earl has most of the work done except for
the security, for which a solution has yet to be found.
Thanks for the info. I was not smart enough to understand it from the
latest messages/irc logs. So Frank's solution
Hi,
I'm just posting to say that I haven't forgot the promise to provide
DRI binary driver snapshots.
The Alan's scripts are indeed great and do most of the work.
I'm just making an wrapper script to them, that synchronizes the local
tree with CVS, builds it, and then call dripkg.sh to
On Fre, 2002-02-22 at 10:25, Peter Surda wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 01:38:36AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
BEFORE the if, X load sinks by about 20% during video playing, BOTH when
using dri (25-5) or not using DRI (50-30)
When I put it AFTER the if, the load doesn't change (25 with
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jens, For TCL support, the driver needs drm module version 1.3.
So, we really want to get version 1.3 onto users machines. Am I correct
in saying that older versions still work, but would cause the driver to
fall back to rasterization only.
I've made the following mods
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:12:44AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jens, For TCL support, the driver needs drm module version 1.3.
So, we really want to get version 1.3 onto users machines. Am I correct
in saying that older versions still work, but would cause the driver
Jens Owen wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jens, For TCL support, the driver needs drm module version 1.3.
So, we really want to get version 1.3 onto users machines. Am I correct
in saying that older versions still work, but would cause the driver to
fall back to rasterization only.
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 11:42:48AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
First, what are the base requirements before installation? It looks
like XFree86 4.x and Linux Kernel 2.4.x are required and checked for by
the install script.
The requirement has always been XFree86 4.x
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:26:03AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 11:42:48AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
First, what are the base requirements before installation? It looks
like XFree86 4.x and Linux Kernel 2.4.x are required and checked for by
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 04:28:09PM +0100, Michel Dnzer wrote:
Hmm. I don't suppose the R128DMA() call per se imposes such a high load?
No, I also tested it inside R128RMA (for the cases DMA is working) and inside
the if cycle for cases it isn't. It is not (directly) R128DMA that is
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
http://mefriss1.swan.ac.uk/~jfonseca/dri/packages/
Unfortunately, as you can notice the packages are huge. Attached is a
file list of the i810 driver. libGLcore, e.g., is 18
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 04:56:48PM +, Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
http://mefriss1.swan.ac.uk/~jfonseca/dri/packages/
Just a comment. Why don't you put these up on the DRI pages
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:26:03AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 11:42:48AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
First, what are the base requirements before installation? It looks
like XFree86 4.x and Linux Kernel 2.4.x are
On Fri, 2002-02-22 at 17:02, Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 04:56:48PM +, Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
http://mefriss1.swan.ac.uk/~jfonseca/dri/packages/
So, even though I'm pretty sure the Mobility chips don't even have
the TCL functionality to begin with, I thought I'd test the new Radeon
code on my Compaq Presario 2700 (Mobility LY chip) just to see if it broke
anything :-)
Well, it did... When I start up a 3D application,
I've also put the my (incredible simple and featureless) script for
doing this at the scripts/ subdirectory.
Jose Fonseca
On Fri, 2002-02-22 at 16:56, Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
Jens Owen wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jens Owen wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jens, For TCL support, the driver needs drm module version 1.3.
So, we really want to get version 1.3 onto users machines. Am I correct
in saying that older versions still work, but would
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 05:15:00PM +, Jose Fonseca wrote:
On Fri, 2002-02-22 at 17:02, Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 04:56:48PM +, Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:26:03AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 11:42:48AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
First, what are the base requirements before installation? It looks
like XFree86 4.x and Linux Kernel 2.4.x are
Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
http://mefriss1.swan.ac.uk/~jfonseca/dri/packages/
Unfortunately, as you can notice the packages are huge. Attached is a
file list of the i810
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jens Owen wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jens Owen wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jens, For TCL support, the driver needs drm module version 1.3.
So, we really want to get version 1.3 onto users machines. Am I correct
in saying that
Hello,
as you all should have noticed the Linux kernel team has this under
development (2.5 and backport patches for 2.4.17+). So I would sharp your
senses, that we should consider this when we do new DRM stuff.
I think there is ongoing discussion in the Mach 64 group (udelay vs sleep)?
As I
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:26:03AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 11:42:48AM -0700, Jens Owen wrote:
First, what are the base requirements before installation? It looks
like XFree86
Jens Owen wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jens Owen wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jens Owen wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jens, For TCL support, the driver needs drm module version 1.3.
So, we really want to get version 1.3 onto users machines. Am I
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
So, even though I'm pretty sure the Mobility chips don't even have
the TCL functionality to begin with, I thought I'd test the new Radeon
code on my Compaq Presario 2700 (Mobility LY chip) just to see if it broke
anything :-)
Well, it did... When
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jens Owen wrote:
I was refering to the DRM version
(xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/radeon/radeon_screen.c: line 79). If we require
the Radeon 1.3 DRM module, wouldn't this be the place to check?
Oh. Yes, I missed that.
Other things that would help version
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
So, even though I'm pretty sure the Mobility chips don't even have
the TCL functionality to begin with, I thought I'd test the new Radeon
code on my Compaq Presario 2700 (Mobility LY chip) just to see if it
Just a quick follow-up to a question I'm sure that's coming :-)
Yes, the Radeon mobility works fine under stock 4.2.0, without any
problems.
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:32:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Adam K Kirchhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Keith Whitwell [EMAIL
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 01:32:23PM -0500, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
So, even though I'm pretty sure the Mobility chips don't even have
the TCL functionality to begin with, I thought I'd test the new Radeon
Jens Owen wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jens Owen wrote:
I was refering to the DRM version
(xc/lib/GL/mesa/src/drv/radeon/radeon_screen.c: line 79). If we require
the Radeon 1.3 DRM module, wouldn't this be the place to check?
Oh. Yes, I missed that.
Other things that
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
So, even though I'm pretty sure the Mobility chips don't even have
the TCL functionality to begin with, I thought I'd test the new Radeon
code on my Compaq Presario 2700 (Mobility
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
Just a quick follow-up to a question I'm sure that's coming :-)
Yes, the Radeon mobility works fine under stock 4.2.0, without any
problems.
Jens also pointed out that I'd neglected to update the test for kernel module
versions - is it possible that you've been
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Ian Romanick wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 01:32:23PM -0500, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
So, even though I'm pretty sure the Mobility chips don't even
José Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 17:28 Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
http://mefriss1.swan.ac.uk/~jfonseca/dri/packages/
Unfortunately, as you
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:37:08PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jos Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 17:28 Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
On 2002.02.22 20:57 Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:37:08PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jos Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 17:28 Keith Whitwell wrote:
...
What is libGLcore.a? Is that actually used?
Keith
Is responsible for the indirect
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:59:01PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 20:57 Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:37:08PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jos Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 17:28 Keith Whitwell wrote:
...
What is libGLcore.a? Is that actually used?
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:17:28PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 21:13 Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:59:01PM +, Jos Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 20:57 Alan Hourihane wrote:
...
libGLcore.a is the internal Mesa code that drives indirect GLX.
If
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:37:08PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jos Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 17:28 Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:38:28PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
No. XFree86 4.2.0 is Mesa 3.4.x based, and it seems XFree86 4.3.0 will
be Mesa 4.0.x based. A MAJOR update!
Alan.
hmmm.. the only way I see to make everyone happy (I'm already seeing
Sergey complaining about the size of
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:53:50PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:37:08PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jos Fonseca wrote:
On 2002.02.22 17:28 Keith Whitwell wrote:
Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the
Well, the new TCL enabled driver doesn't seem to like my Radeon 7500,
either. Luckily, though, at least it doesn't lock up X on this card.
Instead, I'll usually just get a black window where the GL app should be,
and then nothing. I can still move the mouse, move the window, kill the
app,
But can't we assume that the user is upgrading from a stable XFree 4.2.0
installation?
No. XFree86 4.2.0 is Mesa 3.4.x based, and it seems XFree86 4.3.0 will
be Mesa 4.0.x based. A MAJOR update!
I think we have to look at the scope of what we're trying to do: provide an
updated dri
hmmm.. the only way I see to make everyone happy (I'm already seeing
Sergey complaining about the size of the download! ;-) is to make two sets
of drivers:
- one with everything included, including debugging info
- another with stripped binaries and without the libraries that do not
On 2002.02.22 22:02 Alan Hourihane wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:38:28PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
No. XFree86 4.2.0 is Mesa 3.4.x based, and it seems XFree86 4.3.0 will
be Mesa 4.0.x based. A MAJOR update!
Alan.
hmmm.. the only way I see to make everyone happy (I'm
hmmm.. the only way I see to make everyone happy (I'm already seeing
Sergey complaining about the size of the download! ;-) is to make two sets
:)) I do not like to complain as much as you can think:). But GATOS
binary snapshots drivers are only 190K! Even if dri will be 5 times
larger - it
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:59:01PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
But can't we assume that the user is upgrading from a stable XFree 4.2.0
installation?
No. XFree86 4.2.0 is Mesa 3.4.x based, and it seems XFree86 4.3.0 will
be Mesa 4.0.x based. A MAJOR update!
I think we have
Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
http://mefriss1.swan.ac.uk/~jfonseca/dri/packages/
Unfortunately, as you can notice the packages are huge. Attached is a
file list of the i810
On 2002.02.22 22:12 Sergey V. Udaltsov wrote:
hmmm.. the only way I see to make everyone happy (I'm already seeing
Sergey complaining about the size of the download! ;-) is to make two
sets
:)) I do not like to complain as much as you can think:). But GATOS
binary snapshots drivers are
On 2002.02.22 22:00 Keith Whitwell wrote:
hmmm.. the only way I see to make everyone happy (I'm already seeing
Sergey complaining about the size of the download! ;-) is to make two
sets
of drivers:
- one with everything included, including debugging info
- another with stripped
On 2002.02.22 22:27 Brian Paul wrote:
Jose Fonseca wrote:
Luckily, after sending the previous email the script completed
sucessfully. The generated packages are available at:
http://mefriss1.swan.ac.uk/~jfonseca/dri/packages/
Unfortunately, as you can notice the packages are huge.
On 2002.02.22 22:49 Daryll Strauss wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 10:24:49PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
I have a web statistics package on my webserver
http://mefriss1.swan.ac.uk/cgi-bin/awstats.pl were one could get that
information.
This doesn't mean that I won't put my stuff on DRI
Is the idea here to have daily/weekly (or whatever) CVS snapshots or to
start an incremental release process seperate from XFree86 releases (i.e.,
with release tags)?
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Daryll Strauss wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 10:24:49PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
I have a web
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 10:54:22PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
But on a daily basis!? At least this was the initial plan..
I was thinking in using a script that made some kind of rotation
eliminating old releases, only adding a snapshot when there were
differences, etc... This can be done
Hi. I recently updated my version to the current tree (recently updated
to Mesa 4.0), and DRI no longer works. I'm using a 16MB G400, along with
kernel 2.4.17.
I ran glxinfo with the LIBGL_DEBUG=verbose and this is the output I got:
libGL: XF86DRIGetClientDriverName: 1.1.0 mga (screen 0)
Ian Romanick wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 09:59:01PM +, Keith Whitwell wrote:
But can't we assume that the user is upgrading from a stable XFree 4.2.0
installation?
No. XFree86 4.2.0 is Mesa 3.4.x based, and it seems XFree86 4.3.0 will
be Mesa 4.0.x based. A MAJOR
56 matches
Mail list logo
