From: Felix <fx...@gm...> - 2004-02-11 13:51:44
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:51:58 +0000 S=E9rgio Monteiro Basto <ser...@ne...> wrote: > On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 22:38, S=E9rgio Monteiro Basto wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 13:27, Felix K=FChling wrote: > >=20 > > > > I realize that xc/extras/Mesa is almost the same source of Mesa-5.0= .2 > > > > with just a few modifications, my question is, have you make any ch= ange > > > > in this code ? > > > > or can I update Mesa verison with last version of Mesa-5.0.2 ? > > >=20 > I think, can be not Mesa-5.0.2 (last version) but one Mesa-5.0.2cvs > version. > And thinking better, the question is, if we have any code thats depends > on Mesa-5.0.2 code or for example should be no problem is I update Mesa > to 6.0=20 First of all, we didn't modify Mesa to make it work with the driver. But the interface between Mesa and the 3D driver changes slightly with every new Mesa version. Therefore upgrading Mesa would require some updates in the driver as well. At some point we're going to move the savage driver to Mesa CVS, so it'll use the very latest Mesa development code, like all the other drivers do by now. ATM, I think we can live with some Mesa bugs. Let's get the driver in shape first. I'd like to make it work with SavageMX/IX chips first. After that we'll need to redesign the kernel driver in order to improve security and allow IRQ handling. After that I believe we can move to Mesa CVS. That's my conservative plan. Rationale: As long as the 3D driver and the kernel driver change a lot we should keep them in the same CVS repository in order to minimize the risk of incompatibilities and version mismatches. I'm not going to do proper versioning with forward and backward compatibility with this experimental code. >=20 > Thanks=20 >=20 > --=20 > S=E9rgio M. B. >=20 Regards, Felix P.S.: Sorry for bouncing this thread back and forth between dri-users and dri-devel. This mail is really about development issues. |