On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 09:25, Alan Cox wrote:
On early athlon you prefetch non cached memory and the cpu corrupts its
cache, on PII, PII mmap frame buffer against a cached page, but the
right kind of instruction in a loop with the instruction bridging the
two memory types and run it in a tight
PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Keith Whitwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ian Romanick
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
DRI developer's list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Dri-devel] future of DRI?
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 10:15:06 -0800
On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 21:57, Sven Luther wrote:
1. fbdev will be secure. Without access to the MMIO regions, crashing
the chipset is unlikely or at least difficult. Even malicious blit
commands (blits to/from system memory) will not work.
For some cases. The truth is a bit more horrible,
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 08:27, Alan Cox wrote:
Sven,
Thanks for posting this. I was actually waiting for the fbdev
maintainers (Geert and James) to respond first. Seems Geert is
receptive to the idea.
On Sun, 2003-03-02 at 21:57, Sven Luther wrote:
1. fbdev will be secure. Without access to
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 00:01, Antonino Daplas wrote:
For some cases. The truth is a bit more horrible, and current fbdev has
the same problem here. Any early Athlon, and almost any PII/PIII derived
chip allows the user to bring the box down if they have access to
a mix of cached and
--- Ian Romanick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Vogel wrote:
To clarify: I meant what has to be done to make
DRI (direct rendering
*infrastructure*) attractive for IHVs. I didn't
mean to imply what has to be
done to get NVIDIA or ATI to release open source
drivers and whatnot.
The
Jon Smirl wrote:
--- Ian Romanick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Vogel wrote:
To clarify: I meant what has to be done to make
DRI (direct rendering
*infrastructure*) attractive for IHVs. I didn't
mean to imply what has to be
done to get NVIDIA or ATI to release open source
drivers and
--- Keith Whitwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting you mention it. This is what Brian
I've done in the Mesa
embedded branch -- layered the radeon dri driver on
top of fbdev. I can also
build regular DRI drivers from a minimal tree sane
set of makefiles.
Can I run standalone
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Keith Whitwell wrote:
Interesting you mention it. This is what Brian I've done in the Mesa
embedded branch -- layered the radeon dri driver on top of fbdev. I can also
build regular DRI drivers from a minimal tree sane set of makefiles.
Personally, I'd rather see
Jon Smirl wrote:
--- Keith Whitwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting you mention it. This is what Brian
I've done in the Mesa
embedded branch -- layered the radeon dri driver on
top of fbdev. I can also
build regular DRI drivers from a minimal tree sane
set of makefiles.
Can I run
--- Keith Whitwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon Smirl wrote:
Can I run standalone OpenGL on a Radeon with this?
Yes. Note that there is some hand tweaking of
makefiles to achieve a full
opengl -- we're targeting an embedded subset in the
standard build.
I pulled the embedded-1-branch,
Jon Smirl wrote:
--- Keith Whitwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jon Smirl wrote:
Can I run standalone OpenGL on a Radeon with this?
Yes. Note that there is some hand tweaking of
makefiles to achieve a full
opengl -- we're targeting an embedded subset in the
standard build.
I pulled the
So what is the best design for achieving this? The
project has to have DRI at it's core since it's the
only choice for 3D acceleration on Linux.
Ironically, the only real choice for 3D acceleration on Linux is using
NVIDIA and ATI's (non DRI) binary drivers.
Does DRI have a future with
--- Daniel Vogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does DRI have a future with neither NVIDIA nor ATI
participating?
I really don't understand ATI's position on Linux
drivers. They have better hardware but they are losing
because of their drivers. I can't think of a better
solution than having a couple
Jon Smirl wrote:
I really don't understand ATI's position on Linux
drivers. They have better hardware but they are losing
because of their drivers. I can't think of a better
solution than having a couple hundred highly skilled,
performance obsessed, unpaid hackers fixing their code
for
Does DRI have a future with neither NVIDIA nor ATI participating?
Are people actually talking to them about why they don't use it and
what has to be done to remedy this fact? Shouldn't this be a top priority?
To clarify: I meant what has to be done to make DRI (direct rendering
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 03:00:03PM -0500, Daniel Vogel wrote:
So what is the best design for achieving this? The
project has to have DRI at it's core since it's the
only choice for 3D acceleration on Linux.
Ironically, the only real choice for 3D acceleration on Linux is using
NVIDIA and
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Daniel Vogel wrote:
Does DRI have a future with neither NVIDIA nor ATI participating?
Are people actually talking to them about why they don't use it and
what has to be done to remedy this fact? Shouldn't this be a top priority?
To clarify: I meant what has to be
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:45:26PM +, José Fonseca wrote:
Even if DRI stops being the main source of 3D drivers for Linux/BSD, it
will remain to be the main source of _open_source_ 3D drivers. That,
alone, gives DRI a competitive advantage over any other solution. Just
in the same way
My point was/is that without NVIDIA or ATI using the DRI
infrastructure it is doomed to fail.
Uhmmm... ATI *does* use the DRI infrastructure for their drivers.
Googled for it a while but couldn't find any hints that they do so I assumed
they don't. Thanks for the clarification.
So, are
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 05:15:58PM -0500, Daniel Vogel wrote:
So, are there technical reasons for NVIDIA not to use the DRI if ATI does?
yes.
NVIDIA already has their own cross-platform low level driver, with a
cross-platform 3d API. It's their UDI, Unified Driver Interface,
or something
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 14:57:35 -0800
Philip Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 05:15:58PM -0500, Daniel Vogel wrote:
So, are there technical reasons for NVIDIA not to use the DRI if ATI does?
yes.
NVIDIA already has their own cross-platform low level driver, with
Daniel Vogel wrote:
Does DRI have a future with neither NVIDIA nor ATI participating?
Are people actually talking to them about why they don't use it and
what has to be done to remedy this fact? Shouldn't this be a top priority?
To clarify: I meant what has to be done to make DRI (direct rendering
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 10:29:04PM -0800, Ian Romanick wrote:
Daniel Vogel wrote:
Does DRI have a future with neither NVIDIA nor ATI participating?
Are people actually talking to them about why they don't use it and
what has to be done to remedy this fact? Shouldn't this be a top priority?
24 matches
Mail list logo
