--- Ian Romanick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO, this is a long standing problem with the DRM. The main issue is
> that there's only one version number associated with each DRM module.
> What's needed is a device independent version and a device dependent
> version. In a sense, it needs something like an extension mechanism.
> Right now, some drivers support a vblank wait ioctl and some don't. The
> ones that do support it, support it the same way.
The are two OpenGL implementations to consider, the DRI/mesa one and other
vendor's. My thought was that DRM is an internal interface for Mesa's use. This
means that ATI/Nvidia's stacks don't have to provide a DRM interface if they
don't want to. DRM would not be a published API for general use. The only
standard way to access the video hardware will be via an OpenGL library and only
one library at a time can be used on single piece of hardware.
If you accept that DRM is not a published API for general use, then we can do
anything with want with the DRM interface. I'm all for anything that will make
the code simpler to write. Nobody but a Mesa developer is ever going to use the
interface.
=====
Jon Smirl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: SourceForge.net Broadband
Sign-up now for SourceForge Broadband and get the fastest
6.0/768 connection for only $19.95/mo for the first 3 months!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=2562&alloc_id=6184&op=click
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
