Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 83

Thread: Have the drm.git kernel modules been abandoned?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,514

    Default

    I think we'll see distro schedules and kernel schedules gradually align themselves so that non-enterprise distros will automatically pick up the most recent kernel release while it's still fresh. Right now kernel packagers need to plan around both X and kernel release schedules in order to pick up new hardware, but as hardware-specific code moves out of the X drivers and into either the kernel or Gallium3D this should become a lot easier for everyone to manage.

    I'm not sure if the Gallium3D code is built as a separate library or is linked into the state tracker, but there's a good argument for having it independent of the state trackers so that only the Gallium3D library needs to be updated. This is all "next year" stuff of course; there aren't enough drivers using Gallium3D yet for this to be a practical solution for distros today.
    Last edited by bridgman; 09-20-2009 at 01:42 PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,641

    Default

    The drm git would be also usefull when it would only work with the current kernel, because it is not really a good idea to compile the whole kernel over and over again after a small change when only drm would be needed.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    The drm git would be also usefull when it would only work with the current kernel, because it is not really a good idea to compile the whole kernel over and over again after a small change when only drm would be needed.
    Code:
    make modules SUBDIRS=drivers/gpu/
    sudo make modules_install SUBDIRS=drivers/gpu/

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,641

    Default

    Well ok, but why do i need to checkout the whole kernel tree when i only need drm?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    Well ok, but why do i need to checkout the whole kernel tree when i only need drm?
    Because that's the way Linux works? It's not like you could build DRM anyway without something to build it against.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    833

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nanonyme View Post
    Hmm, that's the DRM with security issues? Does anyone use Mach64 anymore anyway?
    It had security issues, but these were fixed some time ago:
    http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/ATIMach64
    http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...er/019137.html

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,641

    Default

    Sure, but the checkout was MUCH smaller.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chithanh View Post
    Just my opinion but I think if it's been made secure, it should just be cleaned up and merged into the kernel. No use having it hanging loose and eventually dying out. :3

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,798

    Default

    AFAIK, the Mach64 X driver doesn't actually need DRM to provide acceleration. I suppose that's the reason the DRM driver isn't getting merged.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    AFAIK, the Mach64 X driver doesn't actually need DRM to provide acceleration. I suppose that's the reason the DRM driver isn't getting merged.
    Well, it's not like you would need DRM for any card (until KMS).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •