R300 idling (new subject)

[Michel Dänzer]

On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 18:24 -0500, Vladimir Dergachev wrote:
> >>
> >> I wanted to have a driver that would be compatible with developing code so
> >> that people can test things without the need to recompile X.
> >
> > Right now, those people will need an experimental or at least bleeding
> > edge DRM anyway, won't they?
> 
> Yes, but the way it is now they won't have to recompile X server. 

Nor would they if the code in question was in the DRM.


> > But again, what really struck me as bad is that you did it without any
> > prior discussion. If you're not sure what the best way to do something
> > is, please ask for other opinions first.
> 
> What do you mean without discussion ? I asked about experimental options
> and enabling R300 DRM and initially I wanted to isolate all of that code
> and require people to expressly enable it if they care. It was reasonably 
> suggested that this was not necessary and the code should work anyway - 
> and it does.

That was about the client-side DRI driver, I don't remember something
like this being discussed in that thread, but maybe I missed it. I
didn't see anything speaking against enabling the DRM without an option,
but that doesn't mean other changes don't need to be discussed.


> Now what would you do ?

I honestly don't know, sorry.

> My solution was to put code with a CP_IDLE call and long comment 
> specifying when it should be removed.

In fact, the comment is significantly longer than the code itself, which
I generally take as a sign that something's wrong, and is probably
partly outdated already.


Anyway, I think I've voiced my opinion clearly; ultimately, it's Kevin's
call I guess. I don't have the time nor the energy to discuss this
further.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer      |     Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer
Libre software enthusiast    |   http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer