[PATCH] XFree v4.2.x DRM/DRI Support for 2.4.20-pre4

[PATCH] XFree v4.2.x DRM/DRI Support for 2.4.20-pre4

[Marc-Christian Petersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1028 bytes --]

Hi there,

this adds DRM/DRI Support for recent versions of XFree, f.e. v4.2.0 with a 
slight modification. If you select SiS DRM Module, you also have to select 
FrameBuffer SiS support otherwise it will result in unresolved symbols or 
linking failure.

Without this patch you are not able to use DRI (Direct Rendering 
Infrastructure) with XFree v4.2.0 and newer with the 7 provided kernel 
modules (Banshee, ATI Rage/Radeon, i810/i830 etc.).

This is added to satisfy above:

...
+    if [ "$CONFIG_DRM_SIS" = "y" ]; then
+       define_bool CONFIG_FB_SIS y
+    fi
+    if [ "$CONFIG_DRM_SIS" = "m" ]; then
+       define_bool CONFIG_FB_SIS m
+    fi
...

Patch is attached to this mail.

 Marcello, please apply for 2.4.20-pre5!


-- 
Kind regards
        Marc-Christian Petersen

http://sourceforge.net/projects/wolk

PGP/GnuPG Key: 1024D/569DE2E3DB441A16
Fingerprint: 3469 0CF8 CA7E 0042 7824 080A 569D E2E3 DB44 1A16
Key available at www.keyserver.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.


[-- Attachment #2: xfree-drm-4.2.0.patch.bz2 --]
[-- Type: application/x-bzip2, Size: 33210 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] XFree v4.2.x DRM/DRI Support for 2.4.20-pre4

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 10:54:50PM +0200, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> this adds DRM/DRI Support for recent versions of XFree, f.e. v4.2.0 with a 
> slight modification. If you select SiS DRM Module, you also have to select 
> FrameBuffer SiS support otherwise it will result in unresolved symbols or 
> linking failure.

Don't do this.   Alan already has a sane version in his tree which I've made
ready for and sent to Marcelo.  It wouldn't hurt if you read lkml..

The patch you posted is the crap directly from the XFfree repo and backs out
kernel changes.  It might be enough for a random collection of junk patches
but certainly does not meet the quality criteria for official kernels.

Re: [PATCH] XFree v4.2.x DRM/DRI Support for 2.4.20-pre4

[Willy Tarreau]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 10:27:40PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 10:54:50PM +0200, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote:
> > Hi there,
> > 
> > this adds DRM/DRI Support for recent versions of XFree, f.e. v4.2.0 with a 
> > slight modification. If you select SiS DRM Module, you also have to select 
> > FrameBuffer SiS support otherwise it will result in unresolved symbols or 
> > linking failure.
> 
> Don't do this.   Alan already has a sane version in his tree which I've made
> ready for and sent to Marcelo.  It wouldn't hurt if you read lkml..
> 
> The patch you posted is the crap directly from the XFfree repo and backs out
> kernel changes.  It might be enough for a random collection of junk patches
> but certainly does not meet the quality criteria for official kernels.

Christoph,

why do you always feel the need to discourage people who offer their
contribution ? Your two first sentences are quite enough to let Marc-Christian
understand that his patch isn't as good as YOURS. The rest of the mail is pure
gratuitous insults, just like every other mail you send these times (except
those in which you compliment yourself). Since a few weeks, each time I see
a mail from you, before opening it, I ask to myself "well, who is he killing
today ?".

Perhaps you're fed up with crap in the kernel, but IMHO that's not this way
that you'll get rid of it. This list is a developper's list, so it tends to
be constructive by nature. So please be a little more tolerant with other
people, particularly when they are contributing.

Thanks for your attention,
Willy

Re: [PATCH] XFree v4.2.x DRM/DRI Support for 2.4.20-pre4

[Alan Cox]

On Tue, 2002-08-27 at 21:54, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> this adds DRM/DRI Support for recent versions of XFree, f.e. v4.2.0 with a 
> slight modification. If you select SiS DRM Module, you also have to select 
> FrameBuffer SiS support otherwise it will result in unresolved symbols or 
> linking failure.

Marcelo if this is taken from the XFree86 code base don't apply it. The
XFree tree is horribly buggy compared to the backport from 2.4-ac

Re: [PATCH] XFree v4.2.x DRM/DRI Support for 2.4.20-pre4

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:24:40AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> why do you always feel the need to discourage people who offer their
> contribution ? Your two first sentences are quite enough to let Marc-Christian
> understand that his patch isn't as good as YOURS.

It's not MY patch.  It's Alan & Arjans works, and I stated that clearly in
the thread a few days ago, where someone posted a patch to bring the XFree
crap in.  I expect from someone who thinks of himself as kerneltree
maintainer that he atleast follows lkml, and watching the most important
secondary tree (-ac) won't hurt either.

Re: [PATCH] XFree v4.2.x DRM/DRI Support for 2.4.20-pre4

[David Lang]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

<SNIP> I expect from someone who thinks of himself as kerneltree
> maintainer that he atleast follows lkml, and watching the most important
> secondary tree (-ac) won't hurt either.

for crying out loud, earlier this week we had a post from some of the
network maintainers chastising someone becouse they only sent the patch to
the kernel list and not to the network list becouse many of the developers
don't read the kernel list.

if core kernel developers are telling people they don't read L-K then a
new person sending in a patch and not reading L-K all the time is very
reasonable. you can't have it both ways.

as for the -ac being the most important secondary tree, that's a matter of
opinion, in many cases it is, but in many cases a lot of stuff shows up in
it that never will make it to the main tree as well.

David Lang (L-K reader for the last 5+ years)

Re: [PATCH] XFree v4.2.x DRM/DRI Support for 2.4.20-pre4

[Willy Tarreau]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:38:12AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> It's not MY patch.  It's Alan & Arjans works, and I stated that clearly in
> the thread a few days ago, where someone posted a patch to bring the XFree
> crap in.  I expect from someone who thinks of himself as kerneltree
> maintainer that he atleast follows lkml, and watching the most important
> secondary tree (-ac) won't hurt either.

I'm sorry not to agree with you, but with the high number of messages, not
everyone has the time to catch them all. It has happened that I missed a
thread for several days, and noticed it while being quite advanced in the
discussion (OK, I'm not a kernel tree maintainer, but I'm interested in
what's being done). And I didn't notice this XFree patch either, and I
read nearly all messages. You're lucky if you have all this time to spare
here, really.

Willy

Re: [PATCH] XFree v4.2.x DRM/DRI Support for 2.4.20-pre4

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Willy Tarreau wrote:

| On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:38:12AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
| > It's not MY patch.  It's Alan & Arjans works, and I stated that clearly in
| > the thread a few days ago, where someone posted a patch to bring the XFree
| > crap in.  I expect from someone who thinks of himself as kerneltree
| > maintainer that he atleast follows lkml, and watching the most important
| > secondary tree (-ac) won't hurt either.
|
| I'm sorry not to agree with you, but with the high number of messages, not
| everyone has the time to catch them all. It has happened that I missed a
| thread for several days, and noticed it while being quite advanced in the
| discussion (OK, I'm not a kernel tree maintainer, but I'm interested in
| what's being done). And I didn't notice this XFree patch either, and I
| read nearly all messages. You're lucky if you have all this time to spare
| here, really.

I didn't see the previous patch either, but I wouldn't send
a patch for X11 support and anyone who does should be paying
attention to similar/other X11 patches, not necessarily all
lkml email.

Yes, Christoph must spend as much time per day as Alan does
on lk email and patches, but that's a good thing.
I certainly don't spend as much time as they do.

-- 
~Randy