Hi, On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:08:49PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:57:03AM -0700, Daniel Stone wrote: > > commit aa066db9fe03e39156ebd2416aea25ac72408d99 > > Author: Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Tue Oct 21 16:55:44 2008 +0100 > > > > xorg.modules: Drop radeonhd > > > > We already have a Radeon driver. > > Once again, a very unbiased opinion by Mr Stone.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but thanks. On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:00:44PM +0200, Erik Andrén wrote: > Could someone enlighten me why there are two radeon drivers in the first > place? Originally, the key differentiator was the lack of ATOMBIOS support in radeonhd. Then radeonhd had ATOM support forced into it. It's got its own internal infrastructure that isn't RandR 1.2 because RandR 1.2 sucks and will kill us all, or something, but the only thing it has mapped on to it is ... RandR 1.2. It now has EXA, DRI and Xv code copy and pasted from Radeon. There is the CS (command submission) infrastructure, so if you desperately want 3D support without a DRM, radeonhd is the market leader. On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:15:58PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > Is there a single technical reason why shipping both is a problem? If you're asking whether or not annarchy will blow up if we ship both, whether or not the server will explode in the face of two drivers with an identical prefix, etc, then the answer is no. But I don't think that's what you were trying to ask. Cheers, Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ xorg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
