From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 29 23:03:23 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6991065701 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:03:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from akirchhoff135014@comcast.net) Received: from qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.16]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEA2A8FC14 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:03:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.87]) by qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 37yu1i00E1swQuc51B3NKb; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:03:22 +0000 Received: from thorn.ashke.com ([68.38.117.6]) by omta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 3B3H1i00908Mag43bB3HcQ; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:03:17 +0000 Message-ID: <4ED564B4.1080001@comcast.net> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:03:16 -0500 From: Adam K Kirchhoff User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jung-uk Kim References: <20111128092008.GA58668@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <201111291412.28576.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <4ED52FF6.9070104@comcast.net> <201111291518.04364.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201111291518.04364.jkim@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Subject: Re: suggested xorg-compatible video HW for FreeBSD/amd64 ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:03:23 -0000 On 11/29/11 15:17, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > On Tuesday 29 November 2011 02:18 pm, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: >> >> It is my understanding that to simplify have one unified API for >> interacting with the DRM code, the radeon developers (and others) >> agreed/decided to use the GEM userspace API, even though the >> internals (for radeon DRM) require functionality provided by TTM. > Understood. > >> For what it's worth, the radeon developer I just spoke to even said >> in order to remove TTM from the equation, "something" would have to >> be recoded to do "partly what ttm does". > Yes, *partly*. That's exactly what I was talking about. If porting > entire TTM layer is harder than recoding to do "partly what TTM > does", then it is worth considering, IMHO. > > Jung-uk Kim So we end up with more questions than answers :-) Of course, everything would also likely depend on the exact goals of this completely hypothetical Radeon DRM project. How much of TTM would need to be re-implemented/ported to simply support 2D acceleration on newer radeon hardware (HD5xxx and higher, and the new APUs)? How much would be required to support DRI2 and gallium3D? How much for a full port of KMS? We can only speculate on what the FreeBSD Foundation would be interested in sponsoring, or what would interest the developer doing the work. Out of curiosity: Can anyone tell me if DRI2 is currently supported on the intel GPUs with Kostik's patches? Has anyone tried the i915g gallium driver? It's unofficial, unsupported by Intel, but still has development going on (as compared to i965g, which was dropped from Mesa today). As a side-note, but still relevant to the discussion: the r300 and r600 classic mesa drivers were dropped from Mesa a few weeks ago. They are/were the only functioning 3D drivers on FreeBSD for everything from the Radeon 9500 to the HD4950. Adam