Re: Removal of Non-KMS support

[Ben Skeggs <skeggsb-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 00:58 +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:32:30 +1000
> Ben Skeggs <skeggsb-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
> > I did a very quick pass at removing all the non-KMS support from
> > the DDX.  It's tested on G80 but nowhere else currently, I
> > thought some discussion would be a good idea rather than just
> > ripping it out :)
> > 
> > The non-KMS paths are messy, and lets face it, rotting badly.
> > IMO the KMS code is stable enough now that we can continue
> > without the UMS crutch, and indeed, the KMS code supports a lot
> > more chipsets (particularly on GF8 and up) than the UMS code ever
> > will.
> 
> Considering that any BSD will not have KMS for quite some time
> (do they?), this sounds very cruel. Is it really such a big
> pain to keep the code around?
It's inconvenient in a lot of ways to keep around, especially if it
means you have to try and keep it working across changes.  If they want
to ship it, they can branch off before it's removed and pull fixes
across if they need it.  As it is the current DDX won't work for them
anyway, so I guess they've already done this...

> 
> OTOH, BSDs are stuck with pre-TTM Nouveau until they port GEM
> and TTM to BSDs. How much more will it cost to BSDs to add KMS
> to the list of mandatory kernel features... rnoland and others,
> any comments?
>