On Mit, 2012-12-19 at 10:18 -0500, Ilija Hadzic wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Michel Dänzer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > In the original thread about this problem, you asked what the right > > thing to do would be. I gave my opinion on that, basically option 1 > > above. I still think that would be ideal, especially if done the way you > > outlined, resulting in consistent behaviour between the major drivers. > > But if you don't want to go the long way, I clarified above what I think > > is the alternative that makes sense. That's all. > > OK, points taken. Option 1 would be ideal, but it will take time and > get it reviewed with all concerned groups (X-server and at least three > drivers) and to test the slew of use cases (different combinations of > old/new DIX/DDX, three different platforms, etc.). Given many things I > am (like all of us) juggling, I can put in some time slices here and > there to work on this and send patches when I am ready. I can't commit > on a delivery date, but I won't drop the ball either. > > In the meantime, option 2 seems pragmatic to me: it solves the acute > problem, it can be very quickly ported to other drivers for consistent > behavior (if need be), and it's simple. > > So I will be sending revised patches shortly (I already have them done > locally) that will implement the option 2. If the above plan sounds > acceptable, I would appreciate the inclusion of option-2 patches > (barring finding any goofs that may have slipped my eye). It will get > the first step of the fix exposed to users and therefore tested by > more people and at least the imminent issue will be mitigated for one > class of GPUs.
Sounds good, thanks. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer _______________________________________________ xorg-driver-ati mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-driver-ati
