Re: the removal of Packard

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. 
Ideally it would get updated to use a sensible dma arrangement.  Or just 
forked off to never-never land.

Keith