[Linux-ia64] Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Linux-ia64] Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Robert Love]

On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 18:20, Keith Owens wrote:

> How long do people plan to keep drm 4.0 code in their versions of the
> kernel?

For 2.5, there probably is no intention of keeping that around.  But can
we honestly ditch it in the middle of a stable kernel?  Personally I
don't use it, but its not polite ...

	Robert Love

[Linux-ia64] Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Keith Owens]

On 07 Dec 2001 18:27:11 -0500, 
Robert Love <rml@tech9.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 18:20, Keith Owens wrote:
>
>> How long do people plan to keep drm 4.0 code in their versions of the
>> kernel?
>
>For 2.5, there probably is no intention of keeping that around.  But can
>we honestly ditch it in the middle of a stable kernel?  Personally I
>don't use it, but its not polite ...

Linus ditched drm 4.0 months ago.  It only survives in arch add on
patches like ia64 and in -ac trees.

[Linux-ia64] Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Robert Love]

On Fri, 2001-12-07 at 18:32, Keith Owens wrote:
> On 07 Dec 2001 18:27:11 -0500, Robert Love <rml@tech9.net> wrote:

> >For 2.5, there probably is no intention of keeping that around.  But can
> >we honestly ditch it in the middle of a stable kernel?  Personally I
> >don't use it, but its not polite ...

> Linus ditched drm 4.0 months ago.  It only survives in arch add on
> patches like ia64 and in -ac trees.

I know.  I meant we should continue to support the drm-4.0 package. 
It's the usual song ... we shouldn't change interfaces or required tools
in a stable series, and the least we can do is make 4.0 available
somehow, because someone may rely on it.

On the flip side, I don't care, and I suspect the people who actually
are using DRM are on 4.1 now.  Further, if _you_ are maintaining the
cruft and it bothers _you_, then stop :)

	Robert Love

[Linux-ia64] Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Barry K. Nathan]

> Linus ditched drm 4.0 months ago.  It only survives in arch add on
> patches like ia64 and in -ac trees.

No, it also survives as an add-on tarball for the standard kernel:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/drm-4.0.x.tar.bz2

Let me dig through my old mail so I can quote Linus on this... Here's
what he said in his Linux 2.4.8 announcement message (Subject
"Linux-2.4.8", sent on August 10th of this year):

> Ok, this one has various VM niceness tweaks that have made some people
> much happier. It also does a upgrade to the XFree86-4.1.x style DRM code,
> which means that people with XFree86-4.0.x can no longer use the built-in
> kernel DRM by default.
> 
> However, never fear. It's actually very easy to get the old DRM code too:
> if you used to use the standard kernel DRM and do not want to upgrade to a
> new XFree86 setup, just get the "drm-4.0.x" package from the same place
> you get the kernel from, and do
> 
>  - unpack the kernel
>  - cd linux/drivers/char
>  - unpack the "drm-4.0.x" package here
>  - mv drm new-drm
>  - mv drm-4.0.x drm
> 
> and you should be all set.

The impression I get (for 2.4) is that DRM 4.1 comes standard but you
should still be able to use 4.0 if you want, via that tarball.

-Barry K. Nathan <barryn@pobox.com>

[Linux-ia64] Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Alan Cox]

> > How long do people plan to keep drm 4.0 code in their versions of the
> > kernel?
> 
> For 2.5, there probably is no intention of keeping that around.  But can
> we honestly ditch it in the middle of a stable kernel?  Personally I
> don't use it, but its not polite ...

I said it shouldn't have been ditched, Linus overruled. 

[Linux-ia64] Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Alan Cox]

> to get rid of them asap.  The SiS direct render is only for drm 4.1 so
> now is a good time to question if 4.0 is still required.

That argument doesnt fly. The 4.0 DRM is the only working GMX renderer..

Re: [Linux-ia64] Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 11:35:43AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > to get rid of them asap.  The SiS direct render is only for drm 4.1 so
> > now is a good time to question if 4.0 is still required.
> 
> That argument doesnt fly. The 4.0 DRM is the only working GMX renderer..

So what DRM can build out of tree easily - e.g. the Caldera LTP
(3.1 early access) had a DRM package built completly out of tree.

David, would you remove drm-4.0 from the ia64 patch if I'd do the work
again and package an up-to-date and ia64-capable drm 4.0 out-of-tree?

	Christoph

-- 
Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.

Re: [Linux-ia64] Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Alan Cox]

> So what DRM can build out of tree easily - e.g. the Caldera LTP
> (3.1 early access) had a DRM package built completly out of tree.

XFree86 4.0, 4.1, ... ship with the DRM kernel modules buildable from
the XFree86 tree too

Re: [Linux-ia64] Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 03:34:38PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > So what DRM can build out of tree easily - e.g. the Caldera LTP
> > (3.1 early access) had a DRM package built completly out of tree.
> 
> XFree86 4.0, 4.1, ... ship with the DRM kernel modules buildable from
> the XFree86 tree too

Been there, done that.

Having seen the XFree build process this doesn't look like an option to
me anymore.  Also a separate tarball easyfies building a new set of modules
for a new kernel a lot.

	Christoph

-- 
Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.

Re: [Linux-ia64] Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[David Mosberger]

>>>>> On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 13:31:56 +0100, Christoph Hellwig <hch@caldera.de> said:

  Christoph> David, would you remove drm-4.0 from the ia64 patch if I'd do the work
  Christoph> again and package an up-to-date and ia64-capable drm 4.0 out-of-tree?

In my opinion it's extremely bad style to remove drm-4.0 from the 2.4
kernel (remember, it's supposed to be a *stable* kernel series).  As
far as I know, there are binary-only drivers out there that work only
with drm-4.0.  I don't think it's fair to break someones working setup
just because of a kernel upgrade.

But if there is a good reason to remove it, I'm certainly willing to
listen.  My understanding is that for Keith it's good enough if
drm-4.0 goes away in 2.5.

	--david

Re: [Linux-ia64] Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 11:13:15AM -0800, David Mosberger wrote:
> In my opinion it's extremely bad style to remove drm-4.0 from the 2.4
> kernel (remember, it's supposed to be a *stable* kernel series).

Agreed.  Stil I don't think specific ports should fix that up - this
will sooner or later leed to a full fork.

> As
> far as I know, there are binary-only drivers out there that work only
> with drm-4.0.  I don't think it's fair to break someones working setup
> just because of a kernel upgrade.

_Any_ kernel update may break binary drivers.

> But if there is a good reason to remove it, I'm certainly willing to
> listen.  My understanding is that for Keith it's good enough if
> drm-4.0 goes away in 2.5.

My opinion is that including the drm changes in the ia64 patch just makes
the diff to handle much bigger.

Marcelo, are you willing to put in drm 4.0 as option in 2.4.18 again?

	Christoph

-- 
Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.

Re: [Linux-ia64] Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 11:13:15AM -0800, David Mosberger wrote:
> > In my opinion it's extremely bad style to remove drm-4.0 from the 2.4
> > kernel (remember, it's supposed to be a *stable* kernel series).
> 
> Agreed.  Stil I don't think specific ports should fix that up - this
> will sooner or later leed to a full fork.
> 
> > As
> > far as I know, there are binary-only drivers out there that work only
> > with drm-4.0.  I don't think it's fair to break someones working setup
> > just because of a kernel upgrade.
> 
> _Any_ kernel update may break binary drivers.
> 
> > But if there is a good reason to remove it, I'm certainly willing to
> > listen.  My understanding is that for Keith it's good enough if
> > drm-4.0 goes away in 2.5.
> 
> My opinion is that including the drm changes in the ia64 patch just makes
> the diff to handle much bigger.
> 
> Marcelo, are you willing to put in drm 4.0 as option in 2.4.18 again?

Why would I ? 

What is wrong with the current drm version ? 

Re: [Linux-ia64] Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Juan Quintela]

>>>>> "marcelo" = Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br> writes:

marcelo> On Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 11:13:15AM -0800, David Mosberger wrote:
>> > In my opinion it's extremely bad style to remove drm-4.0 from the 2.4
>> > kernel (remember, it's supposed to be a *stable* kernel series).
>> 
>> Agreed.  Stil I don't think specific ports should fix that up - this
>> will sooner or later leed to a full fork.
>> 
>> > As
>> > far as I know, there are binary-only drivers out there that work only
>> > with drm-4.0.  I don't think it's fair to break someones working setup
>> > just because of a kernel upgrade.
>> 
>> _Any_ kernel update may break binary drivers.
>> 
>> > But if there is a good reason to remove it, I'm certainly willing to
>> > listen.  My understanding is that for Keith it's good enough if
>> > drm-4.0 goes away in 2.5.
>> 
>> My opinion is that including the drm changes in the ia64 patch just makes
>> the diff to handle much bigger.
>> 
>> Marcelo, are you willing to put in drm 4.0 as option in 2.4.18 again?

marcelo> Why would I ? 

marcelo> What is wrong with the current drm version ? 

That you need to have XFree 4.1 installed, if you have XFree4.0, then
you can't have drm :(

Yes, that drm is incompatible sucks :(

Later, Juan.

-- 
In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they 
are different -- Larry McVoy

Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Keith Owens]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 19:38:23 -0200 (BRST), 
Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br> wrote:
>pre6:
>- direct render for some SiS cards		(Torsten Duwe/Alan Cox)

IA64 is still using the drm-4.0 code, as are the (possibly obsolete)
-ac kernels.  The drm 4.0 makefiles are a pain in the neck and I want
to get rid of them asap.  The SiS direct render is only for drm 4.1 so
now is a good time to question if 4.0 is still required.

How long do people plan to keep drm 4.0 code in their versions of the
kernel?

Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Alan Cox]

> to get rid of them asap.  The SiS direct render is only for drm 4.1 so
> now is a good time to question if 4.0 is still required.

That argument doesnt fly. The 4.0 DRM is the only working GMX renderer..

Re: [Linux-ia64] Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 11:35:43AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > to get rid of them asap.  The SiS direct render is only for drm 4.1 so
> > now is a good time to question if 4.0 is still required.
> 
> That argument doesnt fly. The 4.0 DRM is the only working GMX renderer..

So what DRM can build out of tree easily - e.g. the Caldera LTP
(3.1 early access) had a DRM package built completly out of tree.

David, would you remove drm-4.0 from the ia64 patch if I'd do the work
again and package an up-to-date and ia64-capable drm 4.0 out-of-tree?

	Christoph

-- 
Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.

Re: [Linux-ia64] Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Alan Cox]

> So what DRM can build out of tree easily - e.g. the Caldera LTP
> (3.1 early access) had a DRM package built completly out of tree.

XFree86 4.0, 4.1, ... ship with the DRM kernel modules buildable from
the XFree86 tree too

Re: [Linux-ia64] Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre6 drm-4.0

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 03:34:38PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > So what DRM can build out of tree easily - e.g. the Caldera LTP
> > (3.1 early access) had a DRM package built completly out of tree.
> 
> XFree86 4.0, 4.1, ... ship with the DRM kernel modules buildable from
> the XFree86 tree too

Been there, done that.

Having seen the XFree build process this doesn't look like an option to
me anymore.  Also a separate tarball easyfies building a new set of modules
for a new kernel a lot.

	Christoph

-- 
Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.