On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 19:38:23 -0200 (BRST),
Marcelo Tosatti <[email protected]> wrote:
>pre6:
>- direct render for some SiS cards (Torsten Duwe/Alan Cox)
IA64 is still using the drm-4.0 code, as are the (possibly obsolete)
-ac kernels. The drm 4.0 makefiles are a pain in the neck and I want
to get rid of them asap. The SiS direct render is only for drm 4.1 so
now is a good time to question if 4.0 is still required.
How long do people plan to keep drm 4.0 code in their versions of the
kernel?
On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 18:20, Keith Owens wrote:
> How long do people plan to keep drm 4.0 code in their versions of the
> kernel?
For 2.5, there probably is no intention of keeping that around. But can
we honestly ditch it in the middle of a stable kernel? Personally I
don't use it, but its not polite ...
Robert Love
On 07 Dec 2001 18:27:11 -0500,
Robert Love <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 18:20, Keith Owens wrote:
>
>> How long do people plan to keep drm 4.0 code in their versions of the
>> kernel?
>
>For 2.5, there probably is no intention of keeping that around. But can
>we honestly ditch it in the middle of a stable kernel? Personally I
>don't use it, but its not polite ...
Linus ditched drm 4.0 months ago. It only survives in arch add on
patches like ia64 and in -ac trees.
>>>>> On Sat, 08 Dec 2001 10:20:10 +1100, Keith Owens <[email protected]> said:
Keith> On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 19:38:23 -0200 (BRST), Marcelo Tosatti
Keith> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> pre6: - direct render for some SiS cards (Torsten Duwe/Alan Cox)
Keith> IA64 is still using the drm-4.0 code, as are the (possibly
Keith> obsolete) -ac kernels. The drm 4.0 makefiles are a pain in
Keith> the neck and I want to get rid of them asap. The SiS direct
Keith> render is only for drm 4.1 so now is a good time to question
Keith> if 4.0 is still required.
Keith> How long do people plan to keep drm 4.0 code in their
Keith> versions of the kernel?
You mean for 2.5? I don't think there is a good reason to keep
drm-4.0 there. For 2.4, we should keep it because there might be
folks out there that rely on it.
--david
On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 18:32, Keith Owens wrote:
> On 07 Dec 2001 18:27:11 -0500, Robert Love <[email protected]> wrote:
> >For 2.5, there probably is no intention of keeping that around. But can
> >we honestly ditch it in the middle of a stable kernel? Personally I
> >don't use it, but its not polite ...
> Linus ditched drm 4.0 months ago. It only survives in arch add on
> patches like ia64 and in -ac trees.
I know. I meant we should continue to support the drm-4.0 package.
It's the usual song ... we shouldn't change interfaces or required tools
in a stable series, and the least we can do is make 4.0 available
somehow, because someone may rely on it.
On the flip side, I don't care, and I suspect the people who actually
are using DRM are on 4.1 now. Further, if _you_ are maintaining the
cruft and it bothers _you_, then stop :)
Robert Love
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:38:23 -0800,
David Mosberger <[email protected]> wrote:
>You mean for 2.5? I don't think there is a good reason to keep
>drm-4.0 there. For 2.4, we should keep it because there might be
>folks out there that rely on it.
Good. I will drop drm 4.0 support from kbuild 2.5.
> Linus ditched drm 4.0 months ago. It only survives in arch add on
> patches like ia64 and in -ac trees.
No, it also survives as an add-on tarball for the standard kernel:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/drm-4.0.x.tar.bz2
Let me dig through my old mail so I can quote Linus on this... Here's
what he said in his Linux 2.4.8 announcement message (Subject
"Linux-2.4.8", sent on August 10th of this year):
> Ok, this one has various VM niceness tweaks that have made some people
> much happier. It also does a upgrade to the XFree86-4.1.x style DRM code,
> which means that people with XFree86-4.0.x can no longer use the built-in
> kernel DRM by default.
>
> However, never fear. It's actually very easy to get the old DRM code too:
> if you used to use the standard kernel DRM and do not want to upgrade to a
> new XFree86 setup, just get the "drm-4.0.x" package from the same place
> you get the kernel from, and do
>
> - unpack the kernel
> - cd linux/drivers/char
> - unpack the "drm-4.0.x" package here
> - mv drm new-drm
> - mv drm-4.0.x drm
>
> and you should be all set.
The impression I get (for 2.4) is that DRM 4.1 comes standard but you
should still be able to use 4.0 if you want, via that tarball.
-Barry K. Nathan <[email protected]>
Keith Owens wrote:
>
> On 07 Dec 2001 18:27:11 -0500,
> Robert Love <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 18:20, Keith Owens wrote:
> >
> >> How long do people plan to keep drm 4.0 code in their versions of the
> >> kernel?
> >
> >For 2.5, there probably is no intention of keeping that around. But can
> >we honestly ditch it in the middle of a stable kernel? Personally I
> >don't use it, but its not polite ...
>
> Linus ditched drm 4.0 months ago. It only survives in arch add on
> patches like ia64 and in -ac trees.
Well, I am on Debian stable, and the only Xfree4 contributed packages
are for 4.0.
I will move on to 4.1 when Debian moves on, but as you know they are
slower than a tired snail when it comes to new releases.
I wonder how many other people use these 4.0 packages off:
deb ftp://debian.cri74.org/debian-cri potato/contrib_luis_sismeiro main
non-free
--
Eyal Lebedinsky ([email protected]) <http://samba.anu.edu.au/eyal/>
> to get rid of them asap. The SiS direct render is only for drm 4.1 so
> now is a good time to question if 4.0 is still required.
That argument doesnt fly. The 4.0 DRM is the only working GMX renderer..
> > How long do people plan to keep drm 4.0 code in their versions of the
> > kernel?
>
> For 2.5, there probably is no intention of keeping that around. But can
> we honestly ditch it in the middle of a stable kernel? Personally I
> don't use it, but its not polite ...
I said it shouldn't have been ditched, Linus overruled.
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 11:35:43AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > to get rid of them asap. The SiS direct render is only for drm 4.1 so
> > now is a good time to question if 4.0 is still required.
>
> That argument doesnt fly. The 4.0 DRM is the only working GMX renderer..
So what DRM can build out of tree easily - e.g. the Caldera LTP
(3.1 early access) had a DRM package built completly out of tree.
David, would you remove drm-4.0 from the ia64 patch if I'd do the work
again and package an up-to-date and ia64-capable drm 4.0 out-of-tree?
Christoph
--
Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.
> So what DRM can build out of tree easily - e.g. the Caldera LTP
> (3.1 early access) had a DRM package built completly out of tree.
XFree86 4.0, 4.1, ... ship with the DRM kernel modules buildable from
the XFree86 tree too
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 03:34:38PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > So what DRM can build out of tree easily - e.g. the Caldera LTP
> > (3.1 early access) had a DRM package built completly out of tree.
>
> XFree86 4.0, 4.1, ... ship with the DRM kernel modules buildable from
> the XFree86 tree too
Been there, done that.
Having seen the XFree build process this doesn't look like an option to
me anymore. Also a separate tarball easyfies building a new set of modules
for a new kernel a lot.
Christoph
--
Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.