[Xorg] Re: [GATOS]Getting GATOS branch created on Xorg
volodya at mindspring.com
Fri Aug 20 11:07:36 PDT 2004
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Shawn Starr wrote:
> This is best for Vladimir to answer ;-)
> Anders Johansson <ajh at watri.org.au> wrote:Hi,
> I am not an active developer but I have been following the project on
> and off since 1999. To me it seems as if the project is currently
> progressing at a pace which is too slow to produce useful result. I
> just want to give my opinion about what I think should be done:
Yes and no. The parts that are most visible (like releases of new code)
are indeed slow-moving - this was mostly done by myself and I am very busy
at the moment.
However, other developers are active - for example the tv_output
branch was written by Federico Ulivi quite recently.
> I think I would be a good idea to split the project into two. One part
> which deals with TV and monitor output (+ 3D and xv) and one which
> deals with TV input.
> The output bit should be merged with X.org and the input bit with V4L.
This is a recurring suggestion. It is quite sensible when one ignores the
particulars of hardware in All-in-Wonder cards (and similar ones).
First of all, V4L was *designed* for standalone capture cards *ONLY*.
For example, both video-in and TV-output use the *SAME* chip. Do you
really want two unrelated pieces of code accessing it at the same time ?
Secondly, V4L is kernel-space code. There is *NO* reason to have
initialization code in kernel-space - it is not time sensitive or cpu
intensive. It is much simpler to develop the code in user-space.
Thirdly, there is existing code that works within framework of Xv
extension. Several people tried to make a v4l driver - there was no
working code to date. You are welcome to try - perhaps changes in recent
kernels would make it easier.
> Is it possible to cut a deal with ATI for giving the docs to other
> projects so the development could continue?
AFAIK, ATI does not provide documentation to projects, but to individuals.
Also, keep in mind that most of that documentation is simply listing of
registers, which you can see in existing header files as well. It is not
necessary to have documentation for porting. (In fact, initial GATOS code
was produced without any documentation at all, except for a header file
>> It would be best to discuss this so that it gets more visibility.
>> What does everyone think?
>> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Shawn Starr wrote:
>>> Where would the latest code base be available? Would you want write access
>>> CVS? Its possible you'd get a branch for GATOS and then when its stablized
>>> within Xorg be merged into -HEAD.
>> Good question. The thing is I had very little time for development lately
>> so perhaps this is best asked of other GATOS developers.
>> So, I think it would make sense to put this question to the mailing list -
>> it might be better for everyone if GATOS development switches to X.Org
>> CVS, at least as far as driver work is concerned.
>> What is your opinion ?
>> Vladimir Dergachev
More information about the xorg