Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 11 Sep 2004 09:42:10 +0100 | From | Keith Whitwell <> | Subject | Re: radeon-pre-2 |
| |
Dave Airlie wrote: >>2D and 3D _are_ to most intents and purposes different functions. They >>are as different as IDE CD and IDE disk if not more so. > > > stop saying this, it isn't true and hasn't been for years, for the mach64 > type cards I'd agree, for something even like the i810 this isn't > true, most cards have two paths (at least), an unaccelerated 2D path via > programmed registers, and an accelerated path via some DMA mechanism, this > isn't a 2d/3d split, you have to use the DMA mechanism for doing some 2d > acceleration and you have to use it for all 3d acceleration normally, > > Lots of X DDX drivers use the accelerator for 2d stuff, some fbs use it > for accelerating scrolling, the DRM uses it, this is wrong wrong wrong > wrong...X/DRM at least lock each other out, but the fb just tramps in > wearing its size nines.. so in summary the 2D/3D split exists in peoples > minds (graphics cards designers excepted...)
Yes, it is closest to the truth to believe there is one acceleration engine that does all drawing, and this should ideally have a single owner.
But that doesn't mean that mode-setting, etc, has to be moved into the DRM - for my money that stuff can stay where it is, provided there are some sensible interfaces put in place between the two components.
Keith - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |