On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 03:21:27PM +0100, Christian König wrote: > [SNIP] > > On 05.01.2013 00:42, Alex Deucher wrote: > >R6xx and r7xx are really all you need to worry about in this case. > >R1xx-r5xx UMS uses a different kernel interface for command submission > >and evergreen and later don't have UMS drm support. UMS r6xx/r7xx > >support used the same kernel interface for command submission but the > >kernel side was much simpler. Additionally, UMS requires the old > >non-gallium 3D drivers. It sounds like some other change in the ddx > >broke UMS support for r6xx/r7xx. UMS support was dropped for > >xf86-video-ati 7.0.0, so we mostly want to try and avoid breaking > >things for users with ancient userspace stacks and a new kernel. That > >said, I'm not sure there are that many UMS users left. > > > >Alex > > Wouldn't it be a good idea to finally get ride of the old UMS stuff > inside the kernel driver? > > Maybe making it a config option with default N as first step and > then wait for a year or two and see if anybody starts complaining? Multiply that waiting time by 10 and you're there ;-) At least that's my understanding of the "thou shalt not break existing userspace" rule. And afaik we still get the oddball ums/non-gem/dri1 regression report for the intel driver every few months. We tried very hard though over the past few releases to separate out the old code to reduce those though ... -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
