On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:37:36 +0100
Keith Whitwell <keith@...> wrote:
> Felix Kühling wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:25:03 +0200
> > Dieter Nützel <Dieter.Nuetzel@...> wrote:
> >>Is r100/r200 a completely different thing?
> >>If not why not a patch against both?
> >>Then the testing audience should be much "wider".
> > Sure. As far as I could see the code is very similar. However, this:
> > rmesa->do_irqs = (0 &&
> > rmesa->dri.drmMinor >= 6 &&
> > !getenv("R200_NO_IRQS") &&
> > rmesa->r200Screen->irq);
> > looks like IRQs are turned off by default on R200. So my code wouldn't
> > be used. Is the reason for IRQs being disabled that the frame throttling
> > is not implemented properly or are there lower level problems with IRQs?
> No, this is a hangover from the bugs last week. It can be removed now.
Ok, I just saw your commit. I'm working on it now. It will take a while,
though. The code is ready but I want to compile it at least and I havn't
enabled compiling the r200 driver. Is there a faster way than doing a
make world after changing config.cf?
__\|/__ ___ ___ ___
__Tschüß_______\_6 6_/___/__ \___/__ \___/___\___You can do anything,___
_____Felix_______\Ä/\ \_____\ \_____\ \______U___just not everything____
fxkuehl@... >o<__/ \___/ \___/ at the same time!