Is XAA still supported in recent and future xserver?

[Michael]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

On Sep 13, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Matt Dew wrote:

> <snip>
>> I understand the urge to slim the server down, but deprecating XAA
>> isn't the way to do this.
>>
>> In order to deprecate something, there needs to be a replacement. As
>> others in this thread have stated, there is hardware for which EXA is
>> slower than XAA or does not work all together. So EXA is not a 1:1
>> replacement for XAA.
>>
>> I can't see why being able to remove XAA (which would be the intended
>> goal of deprecating it) would help anything anyway. The xserver can
>> already be easily built without XAA.
>>
>
> Agreed that a replacement is needed before removing anything.  I think
> we're all in agreement there.
>
> I'm not necessarily arguing for dumping XAA (I don't know enough for
> that, hence my questions.).  I'm just from the school of thought that
> if two things are redundant, get rid of one of them. Less maintenance,
> confusion, duplicated effort, ...   If EXA could be made to be
> performant on that hardware, I think getting rid of XAA would be a
> good idea, for the pre-mentioned reasons.  If it can't, then end of
> discussion for me.

This would be a hell of a lot easier if EXA had an optional XAA-like  
VRAM allocator which doesn't insist on variable strides. With that  
alone converting most drivers would be almost trivial.

have fun
Michael

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)

iQEVAwUBTI6r0MpnzkX8Yg2nAQIebAgAn1HZi8bX4uiTwddxlzugA4U+8hQdw4CQ
RBIaE6D7X0ZMllZw6UfBCeHO+uV5qRDuzc2DFq+8J4dopot0LKHYnVBZHLu82UZI
cw9d3JfYvI2PgbFpI+8mMG+Xz1cfWKMhwUuvaL0BTTy574jI4wonmMGMVQQrDV3v
f/CQl3NHuVTAFBTdzOkX3XfSfxqQCR7VKl2/+oN0AdF1pFt2W6kT0ytYMsg0pZzi
RAy91CSQzZwILvqbYN0SVm9EsAEtBZEQYzcKH3JxakDfCeU+r5i5rT8/LXOeMmBd
73aTtMrCTlPUf6l9rabgyf85VUguRkY7O6TaVWf6HKUCWz4/AcFIvA==
=gYVt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----