2D and 3D _are_ to most intents and purposes different functions. They are as different as IDE CD and IDE disk if not more so.
stop saying this, it isn't true and hasn't been for years, for the mach64 type cards I'd agree, for something even like the i810 this isn't true, most cards have two paths (at least), an unaccelerated 2D path via programmed registers, and an accelerated path via some DMA mechanism, this isn't a 2d/3d split, you have to use the DMA mechanism for doing some 2d acceleration and you have to use it for all 3d acceleration normally,
Lots of X DDX drivers use the accelerator for 2d stuff, some fbs use it for accelerating scrolling, the DRM uses it, this is wrong wrong wrong wrong...X/DRM at least lock each other out, but the fb just tramps in wearing its size nines.. so in summary the 2D/3D split exists in peoples minds (graphics cards designers excepted...)
Yes, it is closest to the truth to believe there is one acceleration engine that does all drawing, and this should ideally have a single owner.
But that doesn't mean that mode-setting, etc, has to be moved into the DRM - for my money that stuff can stay where it is, provided there are some sensible interfaces put in place between the two components.
Keith
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170
Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on
who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM. Deadline: Sept. 13. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
