Alan Cox wrote:
>
> DRM 4.1 is something that needs discussion rather than being ignored. I sort
> of expect it to look like XFree code anyway and I can see bits of the macro
> stuff will really help with the *BSD code
Some of the discussions I've had with various people regarding the DRM
make me think people miss how tightly coupled the 3 parts of a full DRI
driver are (the other two parts being the XFree86 2D driver and the
client-side 3D driver). It's not like the various interfaces between
the 3 parts are changed for the fun of it. Granted, issues of backwards
compatibility haven't been handled well in the past, but with the next
resync I believe that moving forward this will no longer be a problem.
You'd have to talk to the guys at VA about this, however.
Portability and maintainability were certainly two motivating factors in
the move to a templated architecture for the core DRM. I just got sick
of seeing the same code in every driver -- kinda defeats the purpose of
having a "core" DRM if it isn't being used... New drivers are much
easier to write as well, which is a nice side-effect.
-- Gareth
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 21:00:22 EST