Re: New proposed DRM interface design

[Jon Smirl]

I might move stuff like AGP support into the core. The core is the most
OS specific piece of code. So anything that is very specific to the
kernel API should be in it.

I would split like this:
drm_core - OS specific code, all global things
drm_library - shared code, not OS specific
driver

Then drm_core would always be bundled with the OS.

Is there any real advantage to spliting core/library and creating three
interface compatibily problems?

Stuff like this should probably be an inline...
#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE <= 0x020402
                        up( &current->mm->mmap_sem );
#else
                        up_write( &current->mm->mmap_sem );
#endif

What about the VM page fault routines with 2.4 vs 2.6 differences?
How about HAS_WORKQUEUE?


=====
Jon Smirl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


                
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel