On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 11:57, Dave Jones wrote:
I don't maintain upstream DRM, but I have a fair amount of responsibility
regarding the Fedora kernel, and I'll state publically that looking at
bugs in drivers/char/drm is right up there on my list of
things I'd rather not do after lunch.
Ian Romanick wrote:
I think this is the right place to start. A couple of these look easier
to get rid of than others. __HAVE_MTRR and __HAVE_AGP are enabled in
every driver except ffb. It should be easy enough to get rid of them.
It looks like __HAVE_RELEASE, __HAVE_DMA_READY,
Keith Whitwell wrote:
We've actually managed to do a fair bit of cleanup already - if you look
at the gamma driver, there's a lot of stuff in there which used to be
shared but ifdef'ed out between all the drivers. The
__HAVE_MULTIPLE_DMA_QUEUES macro is a remnant of this, but I think
you'll
Ian Romanick wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
We've actually managed to do a fair bit of cleanup already - if you
look at the gamma driver, there's a lot of stuff in there which used
to be shared but ifdef'ed out between all the drivers. The
__HAVE_MULTIPLE_DMA_QUEUES macro is a remnant of this,
Jon Smirl wrote:
4) DRM code reorganization. There were several requests to reorganize
DRM to more closely follow the Linux kernel guidelines. This
reorganization should occur before new features are added.
What should be the model for reorganizing DRM? An obvious change is
eliminate the naming
ian: what about splitting the current memory management code into a
module that can be swapped for your new version?
AFAIK, the only drivers that have any sort of in-kernel memory manager
are the radeon (only used by the R200 driver) and i830. That memory
manager only exists to support an
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:02:43AM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
This would be *very* non-trivial to do. Doing the DRM like this has
come up probably a dozen times (or more) over the last 3 years.
Which should ring alarm bells that something might not be quite right.
The problem is that
On Llu, 2004-08-02 at 19:57, Dave Jones wrote:
The problem is that each driver has different needs based on hardware
functionality.
How does this differ from any other subsystem that supports
cards with features that may not be present in another model ?
Other subsystems have dealt
Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 11:02:43AM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
This would be *very* non-trivial to do. Doing the DRM like this has
come up probably a dozen times (or more) over the last 3 years.
Which should ring alarm bells that something might not be quite right.
And that
We are really short handed for kernel level DRM developers; most 3D
developers work in user space. The main person that wrote it, Gareth
Hughes, doesn't seem to work on it any more. Right now there are three
to four, non-paid people working part-time on DRM.
How about you kernel developers
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 01:11:26PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
This would be *very* non-trivial to do. Doing the DRM like this has
come up probably a dozen times (or more) over the last 3 years.
Which should ring alarm bells that something might not be quite right.
And that it hasn't
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 22:09 +0100, Dave Jones wrote:
If subsequent DRI tree - kernel merges back out any cleanup work, it's
definitly going to be a waste of time even trying.
That can easily be avoided by doing the cleanup the right way in the
first place, i.e. in the DRI tree...
--
--- Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another possibility of course is that the BSD Linux kernel side
bits go their separate ways. How active is the kernel side of the
BSD world ?
I'll probably get flamed to death for suggesting this, but why not?
What about leaving BSD working with the
If this is something that we really want to pursue, someone needs to dig in
and figure out:
1. How much / which code can be trivially shared?
2. How much / which code can be shared with very little work?
3. How much / which code would we rather get a root-canal than try to make
shared?
Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 01:11:26PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
This would be *very* non-trivial to do. Doing the DRM like this has
come up probably a dozen times (or more) over the last 3 years.
Which should ring alarm bells that something might not be quite right.
On Llu, 2004-08-02 at 22:09, Dave Jones wrote:
Whip me, beat me, make me clean up drivers/char/drm
8-)
Im sure that can be arranged by someone.
Another possibility of course is that the BSD Linux kernel side bits
go their seperate ways. How active is the kernel side of the BSD world ?
16 matches
Mail list logo
