Re: the removal of Packard

On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 02:49:37PM +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:31:16PM +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> >
> >>Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 10:24:36PM +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Additionally, these changes don't seem to be making it into 2.5, as 
> >>>>there is very little divergence between 2.5 and dri cvs, at least last 
> >>>>time I checked.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That's because 2.5 isn't used on production systems.
> >>>
> >>
> >>So these fixes are going in on the stable branch, not being forwarded to 
> >>the maintainers and not being forward ported to the development branch?
> >>
> >>In any case, telling us that the DRM code is a mess is preaching to the 
> >>converted.  I know it needs overhauling, so does anyone who looks at it.
> >>
> >>A lot of the problem is that the original design of the DRM called for an 
> >>extremely heavyweight dma engine, all of which is still there, but isn't 
> >>used anywhere except the gamma driver.  Get rid of that and all of its 
> >
> >
> >Which nobody has used since time immemorial, if i am not wrong.
> >(speaking about the gamma driver).
> 
> There has been resistance when its removal has been muted in the past. 

I know, i was probably one of the ones resisting, as i tried to get DRI
support for my Appian Jeronimo 2000 (1 gamma, 2 pm3), but i cannot
anymore use it as i was forced to change motherboard, and my new AGP8x
motherboard does not accept older card anymore :(((

Friendly,

Sven Luther