Ian Romanick wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
2. 'The in-kernel AGPGART doesn't have all the features our driver
requires'.
Newsflash: I take patches.
Sifting through the ATI mashed-up agpgart is quite painful, as there are
so many changes in there ifdef'd to hell and back that its hard to see
whats real
Dave Jones wrote:
2. 'The in-kernel AGPGART doesn't have all the features our driver requires'.
Newsflash: I take patches.
Sifting through the ATI mashed-up agpgart is quite painful, as there are
so many changes in there ifdef'd to hell and back that its hard to see
whats really needed and what isn
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 01:11:54AM -0400, Michel Dänzer wrote:
Hi Michel,
> > Well... however they are working, they're grown-up enough to deal with the
> > evolution of our codebase one way or another. Unless they actually make some
> > comment I don't think we need to try and guess what
>
> As some of you know already, I have a fulltime job at ATI's Linux team
> now. I'll continue being active in the DRI and X communities as time
> permits. If you have any development related questions or suggestions
> about the proprietary ATI drivers, please don't hesitate to contact my
> manage
On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 11:41 +0100, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Dave Airlie wrote:
> >>Why do you feel it will break their code? If it does, they have the option to
> >>either update their driver to match the new code or fork off the old code &
> >>continue to use that. I wouldn't be suprised if they'
> I fell back to XF4.3, and the driver doesn't segv at start - this would tend
> to eliminate the kernel issues.
I got someone to open Xorg bug 1249 on irc.. let Xorg sort it out :-)
Dave.
>
>
> ---
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblo
Dave Jones wrote:
If you're using the Fedora kernel, it could be a number of things.
It could be a 4K stacksize issue, like what bit the nvidia driver.
Or it could be their bastardised agpgart implementation not playing
nicely with the not-built-as-a-module agpgart in the kernel.
Or it could be any
On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 08:48:32AM -0500, David D. Hagood wrote:
> Dave Airlie wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >I'm just wondering do we have a general feeling from a DRI
> >perspective on breaking the ATI driver (which is DRI based) from a drm
> >point of view,
> >
>
> The ATI proprietary driver
David D. Hagood wrote:
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Interesting but unlikely to be related to drm changes, first and
...
I hope this thread doesn't start some misconception that these changes
are breaking an existing binary interface - because one doesn't
exist! Though this is precisely my argument ag
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Interesting but unlikely to be related to drm changes, first and
...
I hope this thread doesn't start some misconception that these changes
are breaking an existing binary interface - because one doesn't exist!
Though this is precisely my argument against introducing one i
David D. Hagood wrote:
Dave Airlie wrote:
Hi all,
I'm just wondering do we have a general feeling from a DRI
perspective on breaking the ATI driver (which is DRI based) from a drm
point of view,
The ATI proprietary driver *IS* broken right now - I am running FC2,
with X updated from the mainli
Dave Airlie wrote:
Hi all,
I'm just wondering do we have a general feeling from a DRI
perspective on breaking the ATI driver (which is DRI based) from a drm
point of view,
The ATI proprietary driver *IS* broken right now - I am running FC2,
with X updated from the mainline Xorg CVS, and ju
Dave Airlie wrote:
Why do you feel it will break their code? If it does, they have the option to
either update their driver to match the new code or fork off the old code &
continue to use that. I wouldn't be suprised if they've already constructed a
fork at some point, as they seem to have done
>
> Why do you feel it will break their code? If it does, they have the option to
> either update their driver to match the new code or fork off the old code &
> continue to use that. I wouldn't be suprised if they've already constructed a
> fork at some point, as they seem to have done so for th
Dave Airlie wrote:
Hi all,
I'm just wondering do we have a general feeling from a DRI
perspective on breaking the ATI driver (which is DRI based) from a drm
point of view,
From a kernel POV it isn't an issue, it seems to be an idea to break em
every so often just to keep them on their toes.
Hi all,
I'm just wondering do we have a general feeling from a DRI
perspective on breaking the ATI driver (which is DRI based) from a drm
point of view,
>From a kernel POV it isn't an issue, it seems to be an idea to break em
every so often just to keep them on their toes...
but the DRM
16 matches
Mail list logo
