From: David D. <dawes@XFree86.Org> - 2004-01-27 17:50:21
|
There are quite a few Radeon-related bugs still outstanding in bugs.xfree86.org, including several related to DRI lockups. Has anyone followed them up? David -- David Dawes developer/release engineer The XFree86 Project www.XFree86.org/~dawes |
From: Alan H. <al...@fa...> - 2004-01-27 18:45:19
|
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:37:51PM -0500, David Dawes wrote: > There are quite a few Radeon-related bugs still outstanding in > bugs.xfree86.org, including several related to DRI lockups. > > Has anyone followed them up? David, I suspect not with XFree86's DRI drivers still being based on Mesa 4.0.4, and the DRI developers aren't tracking Mesa 4.0.x anymore. Alan. |
From: David D. <dawes@XFree86.Org> - 2004-01-27 19:21:43
|
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 06:45:10PM +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote: >On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:37:51PM -0500, David Dawes wrote: >> There are quite a few Radeon-related bugs still outstanding in >> bugs.xfree86.org, including several related to DRI lockups. >> >> Has anyone followed them up? > >David, > >I suspect not with XFree86's DRI drivers still being based on Mesa 4.0.4, >and the DRI developers aren't tracking Mesa 4.0.x anymore. We are at Mesa 5.0.2. Doesn't the DRI project maintain a Mesa 5.0.x-based stable branch of some sort? David -- David Dawes developer/release engineer The XFree86 Project www.XFree86.org/~dawes |
From: Keith W. <ke...@tu...> - 2004-01-27 19:39:20
|
David Dawes wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 06:45:10PM +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote: > >>On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:37:51PM -0500, David Dawes wrote: >> >>>There are quite a few Radeon-related bugs still outstanding in >>>bugs.xfree86.org, including several related to DRI lockups. >>> >>>Has anyone followed them up? >> >>David, >> >>I suspect not with XFree86's DRI drivers still being based on Mesa 4.0.4, >>and the DRI developers aren't tracking Mesa 4.0.x anymore. > > > We are at Mesa 5.0.2. Doesn't the DRI project maintain a Mesa > 5.0.x-based stable branch of some sort? David, The hardware drivers are now being maintained in the Mesa tree. Mesa does have a set of stable branches but the only one containing the DRI drivers is too recent for your purposes - Mesa 6.0. This is a good time to remind people/establish the principle that driver bug fixes should be propogated to the mesa-6_0_branch of the Mesa repository. Brian's always done a good job of making sure core mesa fixes get copied over, but it shouldn't come down to him alone. In particular, the recent TCL lighting fixes for the radeon & r200 drivers should get pushed down into Mesa 6.0. Keith |
From: Alan H. <al...@fa...> - 2004-01-27 20:26:25
|
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 07:38:59PM +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote: > This is a good time to remind people/establish the principle that driver > bug fixes should be propogated to the mesa-6_0_branch of the Mesa > repository. Brian's always done a good job of making sure core mesa fixes > get copied over, but it shouldn't come down to him alone. > > In particular, the recent TCL lighting fixes for the radeon & r200 drivers > should get pushed down into Mesa 6.0. Do we want to bring Mesa 6.0's branch into the DRI repository now or stick with the way we have it currently ? I guess if we stick with the way it is now, then most developers will track Mesa's trunk and we may start to lag stable releases. Alan. |
From: Keith W. <ke...@tu...> - 2004-01-27 20:42:04
|
Alan Hourihane wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 07:38:59PM +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote: > >>This is a good time to remind people/establish the principle that driver >>bug fixes should be propogated to the mesa-6_0_branch of the Mesa >>repository. Brian's always done a good job of making sure core mesa fixes >>get copied over, but it shouldn't come down to him alone. >> >>In particular, the recent TCL lighting fixes for the radeon & r200 drivers >>should get pushed down into Mesa 6.0. > > > Do we want to bring Mesa 6.0's branch into the DRI repository now or > stick with the way we have it currently ? > > I guess if we stick with the way it is now, then most developers will > track Mesa's trunk and we may start to lag stable releases. I like the way we have it now, to be truthful. If we develop on a branch or branches, we get little or no testing, and we really want testing. If someone wants a stable branch, they will be able to get one. It doesn't take too much effort to ensure bugfixes make their way onto the stable branch also. If someone has a bug with the stable branch, the information that it is fixed on the trunk will help track it down. What I'd really like to be able to do now is build the dri drivers directly out of the Mesa tree. Keith |
From: Alan H. <al...@fa...> - 2004-01-27 20:48:11
|
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 08:41:45PM +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote: > Alan Hourihane wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 07:38:59PM +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote: > > > >>This is a good time to remind people/establish the principle that driver > >>bug fixes should be propogated to the mesa-6_0_branch of the Mesa > >>repository. Brian's always done a good job of making sure core mesa fixes > >>get copied over, but it shouldn't come down to him alone. > >> > >>In particular, the recent TCL lighting fixes for the radeon & r200 > >>drivers should get pushed down into Mesa 6.0. > > > > > >Do we want to bring Mesa 6.0's branch into the DRI repository now or > >stick with the way we have it currently ? > > > >I guess if we stick with the way it is now, then most developers will > >track Mesa's trunk and we may start to lag stable releases. > > I like the way we have it now, to be truthful. If we develop on a branch > or branches, we get little or no testing, and we really want testing. I actually agree with you on this Keith. It's just too much of a pain to keep merging back and forward. > If someone wants a stable branch, they will be able to get one. It doesn't > take too much effort to ensure bugfixes make their way onto the stable > branch also. If someone has a bug with the stable branch, the information > that it is fixed on the trunk will help track it down. O.k. > What I'd really like to be able to do now is build the dri drivers directly > out of the Mesa tree. Definately. Slate that up for 6.1, I'll certainly work on that issue. Alan. |
From: Keith W. <ke...@tu...> - 2004-01-27 21:00:05
|
Alan Hourihane wrote: > >>What I'd really like to be able to do now is build the dri drivers directly >>out of the Mesa tree. > > > Definately. Slate that up for 6.1, I'll certainly work on that issue. It's not too hard - I had it working on the embedded branch a while ago. In general, the Mesa make system could use a little modernization and spring cleaning. It'd be nice to see what improvements could be made with minimal or no additional toolchain requirements. Again - the embedded branch has/had a nice build system, although one that relied (very minimally) on GNU make. Keith |
From: Brian P. <bri...@tu...> - 2004-01-28 17:23:26
|
Keith Whitwell wrote: > Alan Hourihane wrote: > >> >>> What I'd really like to be able to do now is build the dri drivers >>> directly out of the Mesa tree. >> >> >> >> Definately. Slate that up for 6.1, I'll certainly work on that issue. > > > It's not too hard - I had it working on the embedded branch a while ago. > > In general, the Mesa make system could use a little modernization and > spring cleaning. It'd be nice to see what improvements could be made > with minimal or no additional toolchain requirements. > > Again - the embedded branch has/had a nice build system, although one > that relied (very minimally) on GNU make. If we required GNU make for compiling Mesa, that wouldn't be too terrible. The Chromium project uses GNU make and it seems to be working fine and accepted. I agree that some spring cleaning is in order. -Brian |
From: Michel <mi...@da...> - 2004-01-27 23:25:26
|
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 21:41, Keith Whitwell wrote: > Alan Hourihane wrote: > > > > Do we want to bring Mesa 6.0's branch into the DRI repository now or > > stick with the way we have it currently ? > > > > I guess if we stick with the way it is now, then most developers will > > track Mesa's trunk and we may start to lag stable releases. > > I like the way we have it now, to be truthful. If we develop on a branch or > branches, we get little or no testing, and we really want testing. Agreed. What about a branch corresponding to the Mesa stable branch though? Then David could grab that for XFree86. > What I'd really like to be able to do now is build the dri drivers directly > out of the Mesa tree. Indeed, that'd be very nice. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Libre software enthusiast | http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer |
From: Otto S. <so...@gu...> - 2004-01-28 03:44:16
|
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 08:41:45PM +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote: > What I'd really like to be able to do now is build the dri drivers directly > out of the Mesa tree. Does this means that finally we will see XFree and linux-solo build it's drivers from Mesa-newtree/src/drivers/dri or this is not the case yet? -solca |
From: Keith W. <ke...@tu...> - 2004-01-28 08:36:06
|
Otto Solares wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 08:41:45PM +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote: > >>What I'd really like to be able to do now is build the dri drivers directly >>out of the Mesa tree. > > > Does this means that finally we will see XFree and linux-solo build > it's drivers from Mesa-newtree/src/drivers/dri or this is not the > case yet? I can't say what XFree will do, but I doubt they'd suddenly stop using Imake and jump on whatever we provide. Rather, it'll mean that you can build the drivers either directly from a Mesa tree, or using the current method via an XFree86 or DRI cvs tree pointed at or containing a Mesa tree. Keith |
From: Alan H. <al...@fa...> - 2004-01-28 10:29:14
|
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:44:31PM -0600, Otto Solares wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 08:41:45PM +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote: > > What I'd really like to be able to do now is build the dri drivers directly > > out of the Mesa tree. > > Does this means that finally we will see XFree and linux-solo build > it's drivers from Mesa-newtree/src/drivers/dri or this is not the > case yet? That's the goal, but it's not working yet. Alan. |
From: Alex D. <ag...@ya...> - 2004-01-27 21:17:21
|
--- Alan Hourihane <al...@fa...> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 07:38:59PM +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote: > > This is a good time to remind people/establish the principle that > driver > > bug fixes should be propogated to the mesa-6_0_branch of the Mesa > > repository. Brian's always done a good job of making sure core mesa > fixes > > get copied over, but it shouldn't come down to him alone. > > > > In particular, the recent TCL lighting fixes for the radeon & r200 > drivers > > should get pushed down into Mesa 6.0. > > Do we want to bring Mesa 6.0's branch into the DRI repository now or > stick with the way we have it currently ? I'm not sure I see the use. it's too late for xfree 4.4 and it'll be too old for 4.5 since by that time we'll be on to mesa 7 or 8. > > I guess if we stick with the way it is now, then most developers will > track Mesa's trunk and we may start to lag stable releases. > I think it's easier to have them in mesa, so that we can track the latest mesa fixes/features in the 3d drivers, but I'm not an expert. the only problem I can see is that we would have to merge mesa and dri into xfree86 when we did merges. either that or just package them separately. if a user wants 3D she/he will have to install a mesa package. then users can upgrade 3D without needing a new xfree86. Alex __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ |
From: Alan H. <al...@fa...> - 2004-01-27 22:07:52
|
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 01:17:20PM -0800, Alex Deucher wrote: > > --- Alan Hourihane <al...@fa...> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 07:38:59PM +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote: > > > This is a good time to remind people/establish the principle that > > driver > > > bug fixes should be propogated to the mesa-6_0_branch of the Mesa > > > repository. Brian's always done a good job of making sure core mesa > > fixes > > > get copied over, but it shouldn't come down to him alone. > > > > > > In particular, the recent TCL lighting fixes for the radeon & r200 > > drivers > > > should get pushed down into Mesa 6.0. > > > > Do we want to bring Mesa 6.0's branch into the DRI repository now or > > stick with the way we have it currently ? > > I'm not sure I see the use. it's too late for xfree 4.4 and it'll be > too old for 4.5 since by that time we'll be on to mesa 7 or 8. I think you missed my point. It had no relation to XFree86 4.4.0. Alan. |
From: Alan H. <al...@fa...> - 2004-01-27 19:52:40
|
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:21:42PM -0500, David Dawes wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 06:45:10PM +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:37:51PM -0500, David Dawes wrote: > >> There are quite a few Radeon-related bugs still outstanding in > >> bugs.xfree86.org, including several related to DRI lockups. > >> > >> Has anyone followed them up? > > > >David, > > > >I suspect not with XFree86's DRI drivers still being based on Mesa 4.0.4, > >and the DRI developers aren't tracking Mesa 4.0.x anymore. > > We are at Mesa 5.0.2. Doesn't the DRI project maintain a Mesa > 5.0.x-based stable branch of some sort? Whoops, sorry I meant to say 5.0.2. It's moved to Mesa 6.0 now, but I don't believe there's anyone maintaining a stable 5.0.2 branch. Alan. |
From: David D. <dawes@XFree86.Org> - 2004-01-27 21:38:18
|
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 07:52:32PM +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote: >On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:21:42PM -0500, David Dawes wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 06:45:10PM +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote: >> >On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:37:51PM -0500, David Dawes wrote: >> >> There are quite a few Radeon-related bugs still outstanding in >> >> bugs.xfree86.org, including several related to DRI lockups. >> >> >> >> Has anyone followed them up? >> > >> >David, >> > >> >I suspect not with XFree86's DRI drivers still being based on Mesa 4.0.4, >> >and the DRI developers aren't tracking Mesa 4.0.x anymore. >> >> We are at Mesa 5.0.2. Doesn't the DRI project maintain a Mesa >> 5.0.x-based stable branch of some sort? > >Whoops, sorry I meant to say 5.0.2. > >It's moved to Mesa 6.0 now, but I don't believe there's anyone maintaining >a stable 5.0.2 branch. OK, no worries. Are the still-open DRI-related bugs in bugs.xfree86.org fixed in Mesa 6.0? David -- David Dawes developer/release engineer The XFree86 Project www.XFree86.org/~dawes |
From: Alan H. <al...@fa...> - 2004-01-27 23:28:10
|
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 12:25:23AM +0100, Michel D=E4nzer wrote: > On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 21:41, Keith Whitwell wrote: > > Alan Hourihane wrote: > > >=20 > > > Do we want to bring Mesa 6.0's branch into the DRI repository now o= r > > > stick with the way we have it currently ? > > >=20 > > > I guess if we stick with the way it is now, then most developers wi= ll > > > track Mesa's trunk and we may start to lag stable releases. > >=20 > > I like the way we have it now, to be truthful. If we develop on a br= anch or=20 > > branches, we get little or no testing, and we really want testing. >=20 > Agreed. What about a branch corresponding to the Mesa stable branch > though? Then David could grab that for XFree86. =20 It's currently mesa_6_0_branch.=20 Alan. |
From: Michel <mi...@da...> - 2004-01-27 23:35:07
|
On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 00:28, Alan Hourihane wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 12:25:23AM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > What about a branch corresponding to the Mesa stable branch though? > > Then David could grab that for XFree86. > > It's currently mesa_6_0_branch. Yes, I mean a corresponding branch in DRI CVS. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Libre software enthusiast | http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer |