Backing out DRI2 from server 1.5

Keith Packard keithp at
Tue Aug 5 11:11:06 PDT 2008

On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 08:39 +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote:

> It seems as though the memory managers are going to be driver specific
> at this time, so we can't have the Xserver relying on a specific one.

Yup. There wasn't any reason to make DRI2 TTM-specific, aside from the
desire to eliminate a bunch of otherwise unneeded DRM api. I think using
TTM or GEM objects to hold data shared only between Linux processes is
not a good idea anyway.

> Maybe we should have some callbacks to the driver for DRI2 specific
> handling ?

The only TTM/DRI2 interaction was in the allocation of the shared area.
Using shm_open or the old drmAddMap API will make it MM-independent
without requiring any callbacks. I don't know which one Kristian is
planning on using today.

keith.packard at
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the xorg mailing list