A New Acceleration Architecture For X
Phoronix: A New Acceleration Architecture For X
XAA, or the XFree86 Acceleration Architecture, is over twelve years old and finally in 2005 it was greeted by a replacement, EXA. XAA is nearing an end-of-life and Intel is prepared to remove XAA acceleration within their next Intel graphics driver release later this year...
He's better make it really, really good. Otherwise he looks like a jerk to me, always wiping out other's code using his code
mh, i'm getting some troubles. what about glucose? is exa/glucose/uxa usable with gallium3d? or are they going to be obsolete and will be substituted? why do they have such big plans when it doesn't makt *that* much sense to put lots of efforts into the "old" dri-model?
Another day, another Xorg technology acronym ..
Xorg development looks very chaotic from the outside. Can't be much fun to program GFX device drivers using a framework in complete limbo all the time. I'll go with nothing but NVidia's proprietary solution, since they pretty much rip out DRI, and it works so blazingly well (and they are working on the 2D-problems for GF8000/9000-gen cards). When will the free next-gen-DRI stack ever mature ? Let's hope the over-night trashing-and-introducing-a-new-API process works out well in the end for *all* graphics-card brands (not just Intel). However long that will be.
Well, if that means that 2d acceleration in Linux will not suck anymore, I'm in all for it!
Is Intel bullying Xorg?
Let me see: Intel had a memory manager done by Tungsten graphics (TTM) and then they threw it away and replaced with their own GEM. After 12 years we finally have a better 2d acceleration architecture, and just the time for it to be ready and Intel threws in a replacement. And now anyone who was going on working to EXA and TTM based drivers must stop and redo all the work from start.
Which technology will be shot dead next? Gallium3d looks the best candidate in the line.
Going on this way, X.org may
1) become an Intel-only graphix server or
2) fork (again) into an Intel-X and exa-ttm-gallium-Y.
Well, if it's "better" then why not. Still, all this wait is really annoying.
EXA actually works quite well when it's done properly. I'm not sure what benefits UXA really intends to offer.
It's good to keep some perspective about this: this doesn't suddenly make EXA worthless. EXA is still a good architecture and, for example, on radeon (up through r500), it provides very fast 2d. I'd like to see what benefits can be had from UXA. They'd have to be pretty darn good to justify replacing EXA in a bunch of drivers that already have it.
I keep wondering when we'll move to a unified 2d/3d stack, in other words, when 2d API is just a subset of the 3d API.
EXA ist just an API an can be implemented using the 3D engine. And the recent chnages that speeded up EXA were not in the intel driver, but in the xserver - thats why radeon flys now with EXA too.
Originally Posted by _txf_
So can we stop whining now and accept that building a proper acceleration architecture takes time...