[Nouveau] [PATCH] nv30/nv40 Gallium drivers unification

[Younes Manton]

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Luca Barbieri <luca at luca-barbieri.com> wrote:
> Currently the nv30 and nv40 Gallium drivers are very similar, and
> contain about 5000 lines of essentially duplicate code.
>
> I prepared a patchset (which can be found at
> http://repo.or.cz/w/mesa/mesa-lb.git/shortlog/refs/heads/unification+fixes)
> which gradually unifies the drivers, one file per the commit.
>
> A new "nvfx" directory is created, and unified files are put there one by one.
> After all patches are applied, the nv30 and nv40 directories are
> removed and the only the new nvfx directory remains.
>
> The first patches unify the engine naming (s/curie/eng3d/g;
> s/rankine/eng3d), and switch nv40 to use the NV34TCL_ constants.
> Initial versions of this work changed renouveau.xml to create a new
> "NVFXTCL" object, but the current version doesn't need any
> renouveau.xml modification at all.
>
> The "unification+fixes" branch referenced above is the one that should
> be tested.
> The "unification" branch contains just the unification, with no
> behavior changes, while "unification+fixes" also fixes swtnl and quad
> rendering, allowing to better test the unification. Some cleanups on
> top of the unfication are also included.
>
> That same repository also contains other branches with significant
> improvements on top of the unification, but I'm still not proposing
> them for inclusion as they need more testing and some fixes.
>
> While there are some branches in the Mesa repository that would
> conflict with this, such branches seem to be popping up continuously
> (and this is good!), so waiting until they are merged probably won't
> really work.
>
> The conflicts are minimal anyway and the driver fixes can be very
> easily reconstructed over the unified codebase.
>
> How about merging this?
> Any objections? Any comments?

Pushed. Thanks.