On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:40:36 -0700, Ian Romanick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Given that, it seems reasonable to not implement drm-core for 2.4. If > we need to apply bug fixes to 2.4, we'll just have to figure out how to > back-port them to the old arch.
Backporting shouldn't be too hard since the card specific code is mostly untouched, it's the base driver code that is completely changed. If we only backport fixes and not new features the work should be minimal. Is drm-core good enough for the kernel yet? Are more than five people using it? At some point we need to bless DRM core as the 2.6 platform. After that happens I'll remove all of the 2.4 compatibility hooks from it. Those hooks generate considerable clutter in the code. I could also remove the linux-2.6 directory from CVS which will force all 2.6 CVS users onto the drm-core code. That would create some more testers. What is the decision for BSD? Is it going to track drm-core or stay with the old model? If it stays with the old model it will have to use the 2.4 shared files. The DRM() macros are gone in the shared-core directory so the only way to use that code is for BSD to also use the core model. -- Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
