From: Eric A. <et...@lc...> - 2004-06-12 17:46:53
|
On Sat, 2004-06-12 at 08:40, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:44:43 +0200, Michel Dänzer <mi...@da...> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 23:17 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: > > > I would like to see a merge from DRI CVS to X.Org in the near future. > > > Is there any opposition to this? > > > > No opposition, but a concern: Where are we going to integrate the DRI > > with the Composite extension, in the X.Org or DRI tree? I'd be in favour > > of moving the DRI tree to a branch of the X.Org tree altogether, but I'd > > like to hear what other people's current opinions are on this. > > I agree. While we are on the subject, there are also two big patches > that ought to be merged at some point which could make the merge from > the DRI somewhat more complicated. The first is Ati's new radeon code > drop (with revamped crtc handling, r4xx suppot, and render accel) and > the second is the new intel DDX. since the intel driver now supports > multi-head and ryan's latest work removes the hallib requirements from > the matrox driver, it might be a good time to decide how to proceed > with mergedfb. right now it's all DDX specific code, but most of it > could be made generic, which would make it easier to support mergedfb > in all the drivers that currently support dualhead (intel, matrox, > sis, radeon, etc.). Doing this may, however, affect compatibility > with xfree86 unless they picked up the patches. I'm working on the Render acceleration -- there were some conformance issues in the ATI patch that I'm working on fixing, along with making it more featureful. -- Eric Anholt et...@lc... http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/ anholt@FreeBSD.org |