Re: DRM kernel source broken/incomplete

On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 06:03:41PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 11:55:58AM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
>>On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:05:38AM +0000, Alan Hourihane wrote:
>
>>>But isn't it better to move forward than backwards ?
>>>
>>>If the result is no better, then we need to fix the problems found. Going
>>>back to an older version, and just because it builds, doesn't guarantee it's
>>>going to work any better either.
>>>
>>>I've got more faith in the current DRM CVS as people are actively working
>>>on it, rather than using an older snapshot that people could be unwilling
>>>to go back and fix if a problem was found.
>>
>>I'd like to see a version that is proven to build, work, and fit in with
>>our requirements before making any final decision on this.  The snapshot
>>we currently have imported is clearly not a good one.
>>
>>Otherwise, going back to the version of the kernel modules that we shipped
>>with 4.4.0 won't be too difficult, especially if the user-mode side has
>>the level of backward compatibility that people have claimed.
>
>Is there any update on this?

Since the DRM people are not able to come up with a working version, I'm
rolling back to the version that we shipped with 4.4.0 as a base for
4.5.0, and I'll work from there.

David