Re: i830 driver status..

[Alex D. <ale...@gm...>]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:29:27 -0700, Eric Anholt <et...@lc...> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 07:25, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:20:05 +0100, Keith Whitwell
> > <ke...@tu...> wrote:
> > > Mike A. Harris wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:06:26 -0400
> > > >>From: Alex Deucher <ale...@gm...>
> > > >>To: Dave Airlie <ai...@sk...>
> > > >>Cc: dri...@li...
> > > >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> > > >>X-BeenThere: dri...@li...
> > > >>Subject: Re: i830 driver status..
> > > >>
> > > >>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 08:22:42 +0100 (IST), Dave Airlie <ai...@sk...> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>Is the i830 driver considered to be dead, should any future work go
> > > >>>towards the i915 one?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>just like to get a semi-official idea? if so we need to import the up to
> > > >>>date DDX into the DRI tree and start releasing the snapshots for the i915
> > > >>>driver..
> > > >>
> > > >>Sounds good to me.  At this point perhaps we should just not worry
> > > >>about updating the DRI tree and just switch to using the XORG tree for
> > > >>DDX.  it's a lot of hassle to have to maintain both trees and then
> > > >>moves changes back and forth.  New dri DDX related work can happen on
> > > >>a branch maybe.  Just a thought...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think it is a great idea if the DRI CVS tree moves into X.org,
> > > > either on Xorg CVS head, or on a branch - either would be better
> > > > than having so many different repositories to track, and merging
> > > > would probably be much smoother also, and could possibly be done
> > > > more often as well.
> > > >
> > > > Please bring this up on the xo...@fr... list if it
> > > > hasn't already (haven't checked my xorg folder).  The new release
> > > > is looming on the near horizon for late August or thereabouts, so
> > > > it would be nice if this change could occur before then.
> > >
> > > Yes, my hope is now that people will just do their X work on the X.org CVS
> > > repository (like regular X developers - the old DRI/X distinction was pretty
> > > artificial) and the DRI tree can be archived.
> >
> > before we archive it, we ought to bring the WIP (savage, mach64,
> > virge, etc.) drivers over to a banch in XORG.
> 
> I'm thinking maybe we don't want to use a branch.  Here's the idea: We
> make the DevelDRIDrivers define in imake include all these new,
> insecure, not-guaranteeing-backwards-compatibility drivers, and they're
> only turned on when we add #define BuildDevelDRIDrivers YES.  For the
> DDXs of those drivers, we add this to their Imakefile
> 
> #if !BuildDevelDRIDrivers
> #undef BuildXF86DRI
> #endif
> 
> Now, no more fighting with branches, merges both directions, etc.  We
> get to keep saying "These drivers are insecure, we don't guarantee
> backwards compatibility," etc. because they're disabled.  Our users are
> happy that they don't have to learn about checking out branches to get
> their drivers.  And we can ensure that we continue covering compiling of
> both paths in trunk by using the tinderbox.

Sounds good to me, however, does that mean there'll have to be lots of
#ifdefs in the code to protect the "experimental" sections from the
"stable" sections in the DDXs?  I suppose that wouldn't be too bad.

Alex

> 
> --
> Eric Anholt                                et...@lc...
> http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/         anholt@FreeBSD.org
>