Glucose status/instructions request, (and notes on stale branches)
alanh at fairlite.demon.co.uk
Thu Oct 18 13:00:19 PDT 2007
On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 12:07 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 19:20 +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > Why Keith ? Any technical reason ?
> I want to get to one acceleration architecture sooner, rather than
> later. Right now, that cannot be glucose as it can only run on one VT at
> a time. I expect that will be fixed in a reasonable amount of time
> My current plan is to abandon XAA support as soon as we've got ttm-based
> EXA working, which should at least resolve the worst of the EXA
> performance problems.
> That'll give us one acceleration architecture that supports our existing
> architecture, and also give us a good basis to compare against glucose
> to see where full custom code wins and where the better hardware support
> in mesa wins.
> > It's an optional component, no one is forced to use it.
> Users always find these 'optional' components, and I end up having to
> support them. I want to encourage OS distributions to ship fewer
> options, rather than more so that we can work on creating a stable and
> supportable driver.
Suppressing this code is not the answer, and the last statement shows
it's just your opinion, which shouldn't be the overriding factor here.
As you say, you can only encourage OS distributions to ship fewer
options, but suppressing the ability in the first place isn't the
More information about the xorg