FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-12-2011, 07:04 PM
Al Dunsmuir
 
Default rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+

Hello Nathaniel,

On Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 2:01:26 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:

> On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:57 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 01:48:19PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>> >
>> > With this approach, you have lost a critical feature: the ability for
>> > you to change your hardware (or move the software bits to a different
>> > computer) and have everything automatically work.
>> >
>> > Nathaniel
>>
>> You lose it for a couple of strange usecases though:
>>
>> 1) Moving from a card that is up to date in what it supports to an older
>> card that isn't (rare).
>>
>> 2) Moving from one crappy ancient card to another (plausible, but still
>> rare).
>>
>> The vesa driver should mean some workable video support in either case,
>> and from there, if we were really, truly concerned, we could detect the
>> need for the driver and prompt to install it. That's starting to sound
>> like the bad old days of kudzu though, and I'd be surprised if anyone
>> really felt this was worth that effort.

> I think losing it in those cases is probably acceptable. My thought is
> that the disk space for drivers is minimal, lets just support everything
> (or at least the current stuff) in a single install. My concern isn't
> moving to and/or between rare old cards. My concern is moving from
> nouveau to intel or radeon... The "big" drivers should definitely be
> installed on every system, regardless of its hardware.

> Nathaniel

For the Intel arches, it may make sense to have all kinds of X drivers
available by default. For the secondary arches, the user requirements
and physical environment.

On zSeries, there is no relevant graphics hardware. When one runs
X, it is the application side only via a remove X display
server on another system.

For ARM, the root filesystem is set up with an appropriate kernel
(likely customized) and a single X display driver. On ARM, system
space is typically quite tight.

Heck, even Intel-based netbooks and tablets don't have all _that_ much
storage.

Whatever decisions are made should take these differences between
arches into account and allow appropriate default and custom setups.
Al

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-12-2011, 07:06 PM
Al Dunsmuir
 
Default rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+

On Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 3:04:36 PM, I wrote:
> For the Intel arches, it may make sense to have all kinds of X drivers
> available by default. For the secondary arches, the user requirements
> and physical environment.

Brain fart - I meant to say "and physical environment differ".
Al

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-12-2011, 07:34 PM
Adam Jackson
 
Default rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+

On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 14:16 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> While I don't care about accelerated X support, this hardware darned
> well better continue working in an "it works" 2D display mode. VESA or
> whatever is fine.

You'll notice I included vesa in the standard list. Not that vesa works
very well when EFI is involved, but that's an entirely different kettle
of excrement.

> Data centers have /plenty/ of ancient video solutions out there, and
> basic video support is needed.

Dude. I know this better than just about anyone. I own the X packaging
in RHEL. Trust.

- ajax
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-12-2011, 07:43 PM
Peter Jones
 
Default rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+

On 04/12/2011 03:34 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 14:16 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>> While I don't care about accelerated X support, this hardware darned
>> well better continue working in an "it works" 2D display mode. VESA or
>> whatever is fine.
>
> You'll notice I included vesa in the standard list. Not that vesa works
> very well when EFI is involved, but that's an entirely different kettle
> of excrement.

But in that case (if you haven't picked completely braindead hardware) you
have a working fbcon that we can fall back to. It'll just be very slow.

--
Peter
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-12-2011, 08:02 PM
Jan Kratochvil
 
Default rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:16:45 +0200, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> While I don't care about accelerated X support, this hardware darned
> well better continue working in an "it works" 2D display mode. VESA or
> whatever is fine.

VESA is not fine, ancient Free drivers are debuggable code when something
crashes, VESA is a proprietary code one cannot debug. It can for example crash
in the VESA code due to a bug in Fedora code corrupting its stack etc, this is
difficult to debug.

Why is proposed a proprietary code over existing Free drivers?

The size of `retrocomputing' drivers is negligible and the maintenance of them
needs to be done anyway.


Jan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-12-2011, 08:09 PM
Matthew Garrett
 
Default rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:02:33PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:16:45 +0200, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > While I don't care about accelerated X support, this hardware darned
> > well better continue working in an "it works" 2D display mode. VESA or
> > whatever is fine.
>
> VESA is not fine, ancient Free drivers are debuggable code when something
> crashes, VESA is a proprietary code one cannot debug. It can for example crash
> in the VESA code due to a bug in Fedora code corrupting its stack etc, this is
> difficult to debug.
>
> Why is proposed a proprietary code over existing Free drivers?

Have you checked how many of these old drivers rely on BIOS services
anyway? In any case, it's vital that VESA work given that it's the only
way to bring up hardware that's newer than the install image -
increasing its test coverage can only be a good thing.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-12-2011, 08:12 PM
Brian Wheeler
 
Default rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+

On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:19 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> said:
> > Data centers have /plenty/ of ancient video solutions out there, and
> > basic video support is needed.
>
> How many data centers run X on servers? I know I don't; they all boot
> runlevel 3 and just have a serial console (KVM switches are for Windows
> machines).

I run in runlevel 3 so its not turned on, but I do have X installed and
I'll start it in the datacenter (on a non-broken machine!) when I'm
looking up docs, remoting my workstation to browse my email, etc.

So it might not be running daily, but its there.

Brian



> --
> Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
> I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-13-2011, 02:03 AM
Jan Kratochvil
 
Default rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:09:36 +0200, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> In any case, it's vital that VESA work given that it's the only
> way to bring up hardware that's newer than the install image -
> increasing its test coverage can only be a good thing.

It does not make sense to test VESA as we cannot fix VESA.
(That is the BIOS part; I doubt the VESA xorg driver needs too much testing.)


Thanks,
Jan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-13-2011, 03:52 AM
Matthew Garrett
 
Default rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 04:03:48AM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:09:36 +0200, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > In any case, it's vital that VESA work given that it's the only
> > way to bring up hardware that's newer than the install image -
> > increasing its test coverage can only be a good thing.
>
> It does not make sense to test VESA as we cannot fix VESA.
> (That is the BIOS part; I doubt the VESA xorg driver needs too much testing.)

Not so much the vesa driver, but x86emu tends to have a bewildering
array of bugs.

--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-13-2011, 03:58 AM
John Reiser
 
Default rfc/headsup: graphics driver packaging in F16+

On 04/12/2011 09:12 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> There are two major package classes in Fedora that provide graphics
> drivers: xorg-x11-drv-*, and mesa-dri-drivers-*.
>
> In F15, mesa-dri-drivers now only includes drivers with DRI2 support
> (radeon, nvidia, intel) and the software renderer; if you want all the
> older drivers you have to install mesa-dri-drivers-dri1. This list is:
>
> i810, mga, r128, savage, sis, tdfx, unichrome
>
> Basically all of this hardware is, ahem, inept. The most featureful
> device supported by these drivers would be the MGA G550, which just
> barely manages to do DirectX 7 (comparable to a Radeon 7000 or GeForce
> 2, both ~1999 vintage). All the others are back in the DX6 stone age.

My r128 card (Rage Mobility M3 AGP 2X; pci 1002:4c46) is running
DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904) on Windows ME. The main driver ATI2DRAI.DRV
says "DDI Version 7". The machine also runs Fedora 12 using:
xorg-x11-server-Xorg.1.7.6-4.fc12.i686
xorg-x11-drv-ati-6.13.0-0.21.20100219gite68d3a389.fc12.i686
xorg-x11-drv-r128-6.8.1-2.fc12.i686
Such a machine is quite usable.

> For comparison, the baseline for the GPU in the phone in your pocket -
> and that platform layers like clutter more or less expect - is GLES 2.0,
> which is roughly comparable to DirectX 9. We're rapidly approaching the
> point where the software renderer is going to be a more satisfying
> experience than hardware 3d support for these chips, both for features
> and for performance.

How rapidly? Today, which one leads in "satisfying experience", and by how much?

> [snip]
> So in my ideal world, we would simply drop the -dri1 subpackage (and for
> that matter, DRI1 support in the X server).

Such a wish would be better justified by statistics on usage
(smolt, at least) and support effort (size and rate of change in
source commits, number of maintainers with relevant experience, ...)

--
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:48 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org