From: Michel <mi...@da...> - 2003-07-29 22:16:45
|
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 22:41, Ian Romanick wrote: > > 1. I don't like the hard-coding of 2*1024*1024 as the size of the > indirect buffers. This was copied directly from the R200 driver, but I > don't like it. We may want to change the size of this buffer at some > point, and hard-coding the value into the client-side driver will make > that difficult. > > 2. I don't like the hackish handing of the pre-1.3 DRM case. Are there > other PCI IDs that need the 128MB offset? Do we even support the > pre-1.3 DRM anymore? If we don't support the pre-1.3 DRM (and don't > intend to fix the support), I'd like to chop all the pre-1.3 stuff out. > That will make the Radeon driver "look" a lot more like the R200 > driver. That's a good thing IMHO. Why not always use ( ( INREG( RADEON_MC_AGP_LOCATION ) & 0xffff ) << 16 ) + dri_priv->agpTexOffset as discussed on IRC? This should work with any chip, memory layout, ... -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer |