From: José F. <j_r...@ya...> - 2002-05-13 10:20:46
|
Micah, this is a subject that although concerns Xpert list too it's more appropriate to the dri-devel list. Jens, I guess that we need to start hosting kernel patches for the different linux versions. We also need to differentiate the patches that should be applied against the linux kernel and those that should be applied against the XFree tree and/or Alan's kernelsource package. José Fonseca On 2002.05.13 04:21 Micah Galizia wrote: > I have no idea where I should be submitting patches to code for, but I > managed to get DRM working under 2.5.15 with my radeon. I've attached > the patch to this message (I saw someone else do it first), if I'm > putting this in the wrong place, please correct me! > > Not much to it really! Just renamed some things. On 2002.05.10 20:24 Micah Galizia wrote: > Hi. I've been playing with the source code, trying to get accelleration > for my radeon. I got it to compile with "make -f Makefile.linux > radeon.o" and there are no warnings or errors. I'm going to keep > working on the rest of it, so how would you like it sent back to you? > I'm new to this kernel hacking.... |
From: Jens O. <je...@tu...> - 2002-05-13 13:59:11
|
Jose, I recommend a full two way merge (DRI->kernel and kernel->DRI). The kernel->DRI changes can be submitted directly to our repository for testing. The DRI->kernel changes require a patch be submitted to the kernel team. If we need two patches (for 2.4 and 2.5) that's okay--but we should try to end up with a common driver source for both kernel versions in our repository, if at all possible. Posting these patches on the DRI site is for the purpose of getting some alpha testing exposure and code review before submitting to the kernel team. Once we have merged sources in both repositories, then David and Alan can pick up the latest from our repository. Getting these fixes out minimizes our need to create patches relative to all the verious places the kernel DRM drivers can be found. Does this plan cover our needs, or am I overlooking something? "Jos=E9 Fonseca" wrote: >=20 > Micah, this is a subject that although concerns Xpert list too it's mor= e > appropriate to the dri-devel list. >=20 > Jens, I guess that we need to start hosting kernel patches for the > different linux versions. We also need to differentiate the patches tha= t > should be applied against the linux kernel and those that should be > applied against the XFree tree and/or Alan's kernelsource package. >=20 > Jos=E9 Fonseca >=20 > On 2002.05.13 04:21 Micah Galizia wrote: > > I have no idea where I should be submitting patches to code for, but = I > > managed to get DRM working under 2.5.15 with my radeon. I've attache= d > > the patch to this message (I saw someone else do it first), if I'm > > putting this in the wrong place, please correct me! > > > > Not much to it really! Just renamed some things. >=20 > On 2002.05.10 20:24 Micah Galizia wrote: > > Hi. I've been playing with the source code, trying to get accellerat= ion > > for my radeon. I got it to compile with "make -f Makefile.linux > > radeon.o" and there are no warnings or errors. I'm going to keep > > working on the rest of it, so how would you like it sent back to you? > > I'm new to this kernel hacking.... -- /\ Jens Owen / \/\ _ =20 je...@tu... / \ \ \ Steamboat Springs, Colorado |
From: F. <j_r...@ya...> - 2002-05-13 18:18:04
|
Jens, On 2002.05.13 14:58 Jens Owen wrote: > Jose, > > I recommend a full two way merge (DRI->kernel and kernel->DRI). The > kernel->DRI changes can be submitted directly to our repository for > testing. The DRI->kernel changes require a patch be submitted to the > kernel team. If we need two patches (for 2.4 and 2.5) that's okay--but > we should try to end up with a common driver source for both kernel > versions in our repository, if at all possible. Posting these patches > on the DRI site is for the purpose of getting some alpha testing > exposure and code review before submitting to the kernel team. > > Once we have merged sources in both repositories, then David and Alan > can pick up the latest from our repository. > > Getting these fixes out minimizes our need to create patches relative to > all the verious places the kernel DRM drivers can be found. I agree entirely with you. > > Does this plan cover our needs, or am I overlooking something? > Nop, but who will do this? (I can't volunteer as I have no more spare time until June.) I would be nice to know what is the current state of affairs? Is it like: - both 2.4.x 2.5.x linux kernel series have the XFree 4.1.0 DRMs (with changes by the linux kernel developers to match the rest of the kernel). - the XFree86 4.2.0 tree has DRM source for early 2.4.x series - for 2.4.18 changes are required, for which Mike made a patch - for 2.5.x likewise, for which Micah patched the radeon kernel only And what is necessary to do is: - adapt the DRI CVS kernel modules to build in at least three kernel versions, - make a patch against the latest 2.4.x and 2.5.x kernels Is this picture correct? José Fonseca |
From: Keith W. <ke...@tu...> - 2002-05-13 19:12:15
|
Jos=E9 Fonseca wrote: >=20 > Jens, >=20 > On 2002.05.13 14:58 Jens Owen wrote: > > Jose, > > > > I recommend a full two way merge (DRI->kernel and kernel->DRI). The > > kernel->DRI changes can be submitted directly to our repository for > > testing. The DRI->kernel changes require a patch be submitted to the > > kernel team. If we need two patches (for 2.4 and 2.5) that's okay--b= ut > > we should try to end up with a common driver source for both kernel > > versions in our repository, if at all possible. Posting these patche= s > > on the DRI site is for the purpose of getting some alpha testing > > exposure and code review before submitting to the kernel team. > > > > Once we have merged sources in both repositories, then David and Alan > > can pick up the latest from our repository. > > > > Getting these fixes out minimizes our need to create patches relative= to > > all the verious places the kernel DRM drivers can be found. >=20 > I agree entirely with you. >=20 > > > > Does this plan cover our needs, or am I overlooking something? > > >=20 > Nop, but who will do this? (I can't volunteer as I have no more spare t= ime > until June.) >=20 > I would be nice to know what is the current state of affairs? Is it lik= e: >=20 > - both 2.4.x 2.5.x linux kernel series have the XFree 4.1.0 DRMs (wit= h > changes by the linux kernel developers to match the rest of the kernel). > - the XFree86 4.2.0 tree has DRM source for early 2.4.x series > - for 2.4.18 changes are required, for which Mike made a patch > - for 2.5.x likewise, for which Micah patched the radeon kernel onl= y >=20 > And what is necessary to do is: >=20 > - adapt the DRI CVS kernel modules to build in at least three kernel > versions, > - make a patch against the latest 2.4.x and 2.5.x kernels >=20 > Is this picture correct? >=20 > Jos=E9 Fonseca I'll look at taking this on. Just got to get up to speed with it as I'm = a bit behind on the issues. Keith |
From: Jens O. <je...@tu...> - 2002-05-13 23:34:02
|
Jos=E9 Fonseca wrote: > I would be nice to know what is the current state of affairs? I'll be happy to review the nitty gritty details...I'll post this to the dri-devel list. -- /\ Jens Owen / \/\ _ =20 je...@tu... / \ \ \ Steamboat Springs, Colorado |
From: Jens O. <je...@tu...> - 2002-05-13 23:43:30
|
Jos=E9 Fonseca wrote: >=20 > Jens, >=20 > On 2002.05.13 14:58 Jens Owen wrote: > > Jose, > > > > I recommend a full two way merge (DRI->kernel and kernel->DRI). The > > kernel->DRI changes can be submitted directly to our repository for > > testing. The DRI->kernel changes require a patch be submitted to the > > kernel team. If we need two patches (for 2.4 and 2.5) that's okay--b= ut > > we should try to end up with a common driver source for both kernel > > versions in our repository, if at all possible. Posting these patche= s > > on the DRI site is for the purpose of getting some alpha testing > > exposure and code review before submitting to the kernel team. > > > > Once we have merged sources in both repositories, then David and Alan > > can pick up the latest from our repository. > > > > Getting these fixes out minimizes our need to create patches relative= to > > all the verious places the kernel DRM drivers can be found. >=20 > I agree entirely with you. >=20 > > > > Does this plan cover our needs, or am I overlooking something? > > >=20 > Nop, but who will do this? (I can't volunteer as I have no more spare t= ime > until June.) Mike Mestnik has created this initial patch for testing. I hope Mike has the time to see this into kernel integration, but we need to make sure we're giving Mike consistent feedback so he's not doing extranious work--that's the intent of laying out a plan. > I would be nice to know what is the current state of affairs? Is it lik= e: >=20 > - both 2.4.x 2.5.x linux kernel series have the XFree 4.1.0 DRMs (wit= h > changes by the linux kernel developers to match the rest of the kernel). Nothing that clean. The r128 driver appears to be something from slightly after 4.1.0. I haven't looked at any of the others. > - the XFree86 4.2.0 tree has DRM source for early 2.4.x series > - for 2.4.18 changes are required, for which Mike made a patch I don't know of any kernel driver interface changes that we need. There are some patches to drivers in the kernel repository that we need to propegate back into ours; however, the bulk of the work is getting our DRM enhancement to the kernel team. > - for 2.5.x likewise, for which Micah patched the radeon kernel onl= y As of 2.5.9 the r128 driver looked identical to the 2.4.17 r128 driver.=20 If we can keep the source for converged between these two branches, that would be ideal. =20 > And what is necessary to do is: >=20 > - adapt the DRI CVS kernel modules to build in at least three kernel > versions, The latest 2.4 and latest 2.5 would be good since we're merging--what was the third version you had in mind? > - make a patch against the latest 2.4.x and 2.5.x kernels >=20 > Is this picture correct? It's a decent start:-) -- /\ Jens Owen / \/\ _ =20 je...@tu... / \ \ \ Steamboat Springs, Colorado |
From: F. <j_r...@ya...> - 2002-05-14 00:07:21
|
On 2002.05.14 00:42 Jens Owen wrote: > José Fonseca wrote: > >... > > > > Nop, but who will do this? (I can't volunteer as I have no more spare > time > > until June.) > > Mike Mestnik has created this initial patch for testing. I hope Mike > has the time to see this into kernel integration, but we need to make > sure we're giving Mike consistent feedback so he's not doing extranious > work--that's the intent of laying out a plan. > > > I would be nice to know what is the current state of affairs? Is it > like: > > > > - both 2.4.x 2.5.x linux kernel series have the XFree 4.1.0 DRMs > (with > > changes by the linux kernel developers to match the rest of the > kernel). > > Nothing that clean. The r128 driver appears to be something from > slightly after 4.1.0. I haven't looked at any of the others. > > > - the XFree86 4.2.0 tree has DRM source for early 2.4.x series > > - for 2.4.18 changes are required, for which Mike made a patch > > I don't know of any kernel driver interface changes that we need. There > are some patches to drivers in the kernel repository that we need to > propegate back into ours; however, the bulk of the work is getting our > DRM enhancement to the kernel team. > For example, the virt_to_page change (used in the i8x0 DRM) happened during the 2.4.x kernel series, but it may be others... > > - for 2.5.x likewise, for which Micah patched the radeon kernel > only > > As of 2.5.9 the r128 driver looked identical to the 2.4.17 r128 driver. > If we can keep the source for converged between these two branches, that > would be ideal. > > > And what is necessary to do is: > > > > - adapt the DRI CVS kernel modules to build in at least three kernel > > versions, > > The latest 2.4 and latest 2.5 would be good since we're merging--what > was the third version you had in mind? I was thinking in 2.4.9, 2.4.18, and latest 2.5.x, due to the problem noticed above, at least. The 2.4.9 and the 2.4.18 should cover most of the current distributions. I think that only the most recent distributions use 2.4.18, and I don't think we should force to upgrade to a new one for getting the latest drivers. I've just upgraded my distro to a 2.4.18, so at least for mach64 and the common templates I'll have to doit on my tree. > > > - make a patch against the latest 2.4.x and 2.5.x kernels > > > > Is this picture correct? > > It's a decent start:-) > José Fonseca |
From: Zilvinas V. <zva...@ca...> - 2002-05-14 00:46:19
|
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:04:46AM +0100, Jos? Fonseca wrote: >=20 > > - for 2.5.x likewise, for which Micah patched the radeon kernel > > > >As of 2.5.9 the r128 driver looked identical to the 2.4.17 r128 driver. > >If we can keep the source for converged between these two branches, that > >would be ideal. To make drivers (all of them working with 2.5.x kernel) it is pretty much trivial ... and the changes are like these mostly : MINOR() -> minor() - if (MINOR(inode->i_rdev) =3D=3D DRM(minor)[i]) { + if (minor(inode->i_rdev) =3D=3D DRM(minor)[i]) { i_rdev is already of kdev_t :)) - kdev_t minor =3D MINOR(inode->i_rdev); + kdev_t minor =3D inode->i_rdev; a little bit more complex stuff is under drm_scatter.h=20 and preemt_{disable,enable}() friends. --=20 Zilvinas Valinskas |
From: Zilvinas V. <zva...@ca...> - 2002-05-14 00:57:32
Attachments:
kernel-2.5-patch
|
Patch so that drivers compile under 2.5.x kernel : -- Zilvinas Valinskas |
From: Jens O. <je...@tu...> - 2002-05-13 23:46:45
|
Micah Galizia wrote: > > I would love to contribute, and I'm more then willing to help with this > problem, however, I've only got a radeon, so I cant do too much testing > with anything else. At any rate, Lemmie know what needs to be done. Micah, Do the changes you made work with the 2.4 kernels as well? -- /\ Jens Owen / \/\ _ je...@tu... / \ \ \ Steamboat Springs, Colorado |
From: Micah G. <mic...@ro...> - 2002-05-14 00:10:53
|
Jens Owen wrote: >Micah Galizia wrote: > > >>I would love to contribute, and I'm more then willing to help with this >>problem, however, I've only got a radeon, so I cant do too much testing >>with anything else. At any rate, Lemmie know what needs to be done. >> >> > >Micah, > >Do the changes you made work with the 2.4 kernels as well? > No. I couldn't get it to compile under 2.4, but I think I was compiling against 2.5 headers. More importantly, where should I be getting source from? The source code at http://www.xfree86.org/~alanh/ is 1.1.1; Is that right? > >-- /\ > Jens Owen / \/\ _ > je...@tu... / \ \ \ Steamboat Springs, Colorado > >_______________________________________________________________ > >Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply >the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: ban...@so... >_______________________________________________ >Dri-devel mailing list >Dri...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel > > > |
From: Mike M. <che...@ya...> - 2002-05-14 01:32:01
|
--- Micah Galizia <mic...@ro...> wrote: > No. I couldn't get it to compile under 2.4, but I think I was compiling > against 2.5 headers. More importantly, where should I be getting source > from? The source code at http://www.xfree86.org/~alanh/ is 1.1.1; Is > that right? That is the source I used, I'd further patch that with ftp://ftp.uni-duisburg.de/X11/XFree86/DRI/kernel-2.4.18-linux-drm-CVS-patch-1.0.0.gz This contains good changes I found in kernel-2.4.18 that should not be removed IMHO. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com |
From: Keith W. <ke...@tu...> - 2002-05-15 15:41:01
|
Mike Mestnik wrote: > > --- Micah Galizia <mic...@ro...> wrote: > > No. I couldn't get it to compile under 2.4, but I think I was compiling > > against 2.5 headers. More importantly, where should I be getting source > > from? The source code at http://www.xfree86.org/~alanh/ is 1.1.1; Is > > that right? > > That is the source I used, I'd further patch that with > ftp://ftp.uni-duisburg.de/X11/XFree86/DRI/kernel-2.4.18-linux-drm-CVS-patch-1.0.0.gz > This contains good changes I found in kernel-2.4.18 that should not be removed > IMHO. OK. Just letting people know I'm taking on the task of pulling these mods back from the kernel and massaging our modules to build under 2.4.x and 2.5.most-recent. Keith |
From: Micah G. <mic...@ro...> - 2002-05-14 01:28:43
|
Jens Owen wrote: >Micah Galizia wrote: > > >>I would love to contribute, and I'm more then willing to help with this >>problem, however, I've only got a radeon, so I cant do too much testing >>with anything else. At any rate, Lemmie know what needs to be done. >> >> > >Micah, > >Do the changes you made work with the 2.4 kernels as well? > Actually, I just realized I should have mentioned that the souce the patch was made against was the 1.2. I did notice that it was put into the 1.1.1 code, which doesn't compile! Micah > >-- /\ > Jens Owen / \/\ _ > je...@tu... / \ \ \ Steamboat Springs, Colorado > >_______________________________________________________________ > >Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply >the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: ban...@so... >_______________________________________________ >Dri-devel mailing list >Dri...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel > > > |