modular: Changes to 'master'

Daniel Stone daniel at
Tue Oct 21 09:16:18 PDT 2008


On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:08:49PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:57:03AM -0700, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > commit aa066db9fe03e39156ebd2416aea25ac72408d99
> > Author: Daniel Stone <daniel at>
> > Date:   Tue Oct 21 16:55:44 2008 +0100
> > 
> >     xorg.modules: Drop radeonhd
> >     
> >     We already have a Radeon driver.
> Once again, a very unbiased opinion by Mr Stone.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but thanks.

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:00:44PM +0200, Erik Andrén wrote:
> Could someone enlighten me why there are two radeon drivers in the first place?

Originally, the key differentiator was the lack of ATOMBIOS support in
radeonhd.  Then radeonhd had ATOM support forced into it.  It's got its
own internal infrastructure that isn't RandR 1.2 because RandR 1.2 sucks
and will kill us all, or something, but the only thing it has mapped on
to it is ... RandR 1.2.  It now has EXA, DRI and Xv code copy and pasted
from Radeon.

There is the CS (command submission) infrastructure, so if you
desperately want 3D support without a DRM, radeonhd is the market leader.

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:15:58PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> Is there a single technical reason why shipping both is a problem?

If you're asking whether or not annarchy will blow up if we ship both,
whether or not the server will explode in the face of two drivers with
an identical prefix, etc, then the answer is no.  But I don't think
that's what you were trying to ask.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the xorg mailing list