On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Benjamin Franzke
wrote:
> st/egl/x11/x11_screen.c requests a driver named r300 not radeon
>
> KNOWN ISSUE: breaks st/egl/kms/
> st/egl/kms requests a pipe named "radeon"
> that will not be found now
>
> so why not leaving pipe_radeon there?
>
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 08:13:45PM +0200, Marek Olšák wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Corbin Simpson
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not so sure about this series, because (a) it should be possible
> > to come up with something that works for both EGL backends (b) we
> > haven't decided yet how much
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Corbin Simpson
wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Benjamin Franzke
> wrote:
> > st/egl/x11/x11_screen.c requests a driver named r300 not radeon
> >
> > KNOWN ISSUE: breaks st/egl/kms/
> >st/egl/kms requests a pipe named "radeon"
> >that will
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Benjamin Franzke
wrote:
> st/egl/x11/x11_screen.c requests a driver named r300 not radeon
>
> KNOWN ISSUE: breaks st/egl/kms/
> st/egl/kms requests a pipe named "radeon"
> that will not be found now
>
> so why not leaving pipe_radeon there?
>
st/egl/x11/x11_screen.c requests a driver named r300 not radeon
KNOWN ISSUE: breaks st/egl/kms/
st/egl/kms requests a pipe named "radeon"
that will not be found now
so why not leaving pipe_radeon there?
that was possible as long we have only r300g.
now ther
