modular: Changes to 'master'

[Corbin Simpson]

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

olafBuddenhagen at gmx.net wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:51:45AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 18:15 +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> 
>>> Is there a single technical reason why shipping both is a problem?
>> For the same reason the kernel avoids shipping multiple drivers for
>> the same hardware -- we want a unique PCI-ID -> driver mapping so that
>> all X.org downstream users share the same code base for their
>> hardware.
>>
>> Forking driver development is a great way to explore new ideas and
>> demonstrate new technologies, but in the long-term, we really want the
>> best ideas to be integrated into a single driver for each device.
> 
> Well, there might be some merit in only having a single driver for each
> piece of hardware (though I'm not entirely convinced of that) -- but on
> what grounds do you decide which one gets the preference? Dropping
> radeonhd looks like a totally arbitrary decision to me. After all,
> radeonhd has been added before radeon gained newer chipset support, and
> I really fail to see why radeon-now-with-r500+ should be treated as the
> official driver, and radeonhd as some alien...

I tried quite hard to stay out of this thread, but I have to mention...

radeon doesn't just have r5xx, r6xx, and r7xx support grafted on, as you
imply. The support is provided through AtomBIOS, and the acceleration
for the r5xx chipsets is nearly identical to the r4xx, with the sole
exception of the programmable fragment shader unit. radeon's support of
all Radeon chipsets is fairly unified and consolidated.

~ C.

- --
~ Corbin Simpson
<MostAwesomeDude at gmail.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkkBn7IACgkQeCCY8PC5utD7gACfcmrQE1aEcGS9lNm0gjlZo7fK
qwMAn2UkRDrRmg4wIoic5q8lopQPT6pq
=AfVe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----