From: Michel <mi...@da...> - 2002-09-27 20:16:59
|
On Fre, 2002-09-27 at 18:51, Keith Whitwell wrote: >=20 > >> > >>It's a big hack to be doing this. BTW it also seems to work for him without writing to GEN_INT_CNTL all the time, i.e. only acknowledging the bits in GEN_INT_STATUS. Would that make it slightly less hackish? :) > >> I'd really like to know why this happens,=20 > >> > >=20 > > So would I. I suspect it's a workaround for some problem, it worked fin= e > > here without. (as I said on IRC yesterday: but then I have sane hardwar= e > > :) > >=20 > >=20 > >>but in the mean time I'm ok to see it go in. > >> > >=20 > > Okay, I'll commit it later tonight. > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >>Maybe I should be more pedantic about things... > >> > >=20 > > Well, I'd rather you wouldn't be speaking in riddles.=20 >=20 > Just about committing code that is a hack-around without really understan= ding=20 > what's going on. I think it's more or less inevitable, however, with all= the=20 > different bits of hardware interacting with each other & us in the middle= =20 > trying to sort it out. Yeah, this is pretty complex stuff we're dealing with. --=20 Earthling Michel D=E4nzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast |