Backing out DRI2 from server 1.5
keithp at keithp.com
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 intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the xorg