Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: R300 Gallium3D Is Now Separate From Classic Driver

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,327

    Default R300 Gallium3D Is Now Separate From Classic Driver

    Phoronix: R300 Gallium3D Is Now Separate From Classic Driver

    Up to this point the ATI "R300g" driver that provides Gallium3D support for Radeon GPUs up through the Radeon X1000 (R500) series has depended upon files from the "R300c" classic Mesa DRI driver when being compiled. In particular, the R300c shader compiler and its nearly 20,000 lines of code. The R300c compiler has now been copied over directly to live separately within the R300g driver, which means the classic R300 driver can be left to fade off and die...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTcxNw

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    453

    Default

    This should have been done a lot earlier.

    Is there any chance this becomes part of Mesa 11 release?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    385

    Default

    Wait, you're saying ATI/AMD hasn't killed off UMS, but that their KMS support is solid; by that, do you mean ATI/AMD as in the FOSS team or as in the Catalyst driver? Because if Catalyst supports KMS, it's huge news to me.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azpegath View Post
    Wait, you're saying ATI/AMD hasn't killed off UMS, but that their KMS support is solid; by that, do you mean ATI/AMD as in the FOSS team or as in the Catalyst driver? Because if Catalyst supports KMS, it's huge news to me.
    Obviously he means the FOSS driver. I wouldn't expect any of the binary drivers to support KMS any time soon.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    Obviously he means the FOSS driver. I wouldn't expect any of the binary drivers to support KMS any time soon.
    Yeah, I figured. Somewhat unclear wording though.

  6. #6

    Default

    What was the point for this?

    I mean, the r300g compiler appears to be no longer actively developed (after the copy only this warning fix get committed and it clearly could be applied also to the r300 classic compiler) and if it was keep compatible with both drivers up to now, it shouldn't too difficult to keep compatibility for future bug fixes.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oibaf View Post
    What was the point for this?

    I mean, the r300g compiler appears to be no longer actively developed (after the copy only this warning fix get committed and it clearly could be applied also to the r300 classic compiler) and if it was keep compatible with both drivers up to now, it shouldn't too difficult to keep compatibility for future bug fixes.
    No one develops r300c actively anymore. There have been a number of cases where changes to the compiler broke r300c, but no one noticed for a while. Now we can make complier changes as needed to r300g without worrying about r300c.

Posting Permissions

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