On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:16:18PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:08:49PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > > > > Once again, a very unbiased opinion by Mr Stone. > > I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but thanks.
This isn't exactly a first. Especially in this whole story, but also in others. > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:00:44PM +0200, Erik Andrén wrote: > > Could someone enlighten me why there are two radeon drivers in the first > > place? > > Originally, the key differentiator was the lack of ATOMBIOS support in > radeonhd. Then radeonhd had ATOM support forced into it. For newer hardware only. Note also that no register level information has been made available for such hardware. > It's got its > own internal infrastructure that isn't RandR 1.2 because RandR 1.2 sucks > and will kill us all, or something, but the only thing it has mapped on > to it is ... RandR 1.2. Yeah, hrm... modern hw really maps to randr 1.2... DCE 3.2 is fun. > It now has EXA, DRI and Xv code copy and pasted > from Radeon. Try again. > There is the CS (command submission) infrastructure, so if you > desperately want 3D support without a DRM, radeonhd is the market leader. You clearly haven't been watching this code at all. > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:15:58PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > > Is there a single technical reason why shipping both is a problem? > > If you're asking whether or not annarchy will blow up if we ship both, > whether or not the server will explode in the face of two drivers with > an identical prefix, etc, then the answer is no. But I don't think > that's what you were trying to ask. So what stops it from being shipped as well? Nothing. Just you. Luc Verhaegen. SUSE X Driver Developer. _______________________________________________ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
