> Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 18:00:37 +0300 > From: Tiago Vignatti <[email protected]> > > On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 05:44:38PM +0200, ext Adam Jackson wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 00:43 +0300, Tiago Vignatti wrote: > > > > > Not necessarily your driver will want to use the VGA arbitration. The > > > patch only cares about the removal of this unused API. > > > > > > BTW, is the driver that you care open-source? If yes, as I pointed on > > > the cover letter, it's pretty easy to go and provide some kind of fix > > > there. But in the other hand, yes, we can stay with a dummy API (like > > > now) to satisfy other closed or jurassic ones. > > > > I have made it a point to fix the drivers consuming API I want to > > remove, before removing it. For example: > > > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-vesa/commit/?id=d994a9abbda582ccd6d38447ca2201de10cc36a5 > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-chips/commit/?id=1c51b5495c51306d7c949583050cdba6f1baf5cc > > > > It's usually trivial, and it prevents people from complaining. > > What about this one here: > > > http://people.freedesktop.org/~vignatti/tmp/0001-Check-xf86EnableAccess-only-in-old-servers.patch > > Seems a bit more clean, but then we'll need to bump video driver ABI. Mark, > looks reasonable for you as well? If yes, I'll go and apply in all ~5 > remaining drivers.
You can probabaly use a version smaller than 9 as there have been a few ABI bumps since xf86EnableAccess() became a no-op. But you'll have to bump the ABI anyway when you remove the interface from the server. _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
