On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:45:59PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > So what you're saying is that it's the exact same as -radeon for newer > hardware. For older hardware, the details of how it achieves the same > end result differ.
The details are still _very_ different, even for newer hardware. > The last time we had this discussion, you hadn't actually looked at > RandR 1.2, but had already decided it was crap. Have you looked at it > this time? Have you any plans to create anything better than RandR 1.2, > or is this abstraction layer exactly that -- another abstraction layer? We're still trying to work out how to deal with mapping DCE 3.2 hardware to RandR and its limited view of a modesetting layout. I'm sure that once the hardware arrives, and we work around enough, we will be able to make it somewhat work, but it will be far from pretty. > > > It now has EXA, DRI and Xv code copy and pasted > > > from Radeon. > > > > Try again. > > Please correct me if I'm wrong? > > > > There is the CS (command submission) infrastructure, so if you > > > desperately want 3D support without a DRM, radeonhd is the market leader. > > > > You clearly haven't been watching this code at all. > > Please correct me if I'm wrong? R5xx 2D acceleration has its origins with -radeon driver code, but it has been reworked to a high degree and now is based on the CS infrastructure. Only 3 files are active copies; radeon_3d.c, radeon_exa_render.c and radeon_textured_videofuncs.c; all contain very R5xx specific code. > > So what stops it from being shipped as well? > > > > Nothing. Just you. > > Luc Verhaegen. SUSE X Driver Developer. _______________________________________________ xorg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
