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 > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Kernel Team

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-24-2010, 08:42 PM
Julien Cristau
 
Default Status of kernel X drivers

On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 23:20:14 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:

> Fedora has been backporting drm (and nouveau) for a long time but it's
> not so clear what means for RHEL.
>
> I think this is something we will also consider doing in Debian. A year
> from now I expect nv to be dead and radeon UMS to be removed upstream,
> making it impractical to backport new hardware support. Given that, the
> maintenance burden for 2.6.33 drm should be lower. But this is really
> outside my area of expertise and certainly not my decision to make.
>
For radeon it seems clear that we need the 2.6.33 code or stay with UMS,
and nouveau is not in .32, so basically the question seems to be about
i915. My impression is that 2.6.32 was quite bad, and 2.6.32.x has
gotten it into a better shape (except for 8xx, but that's been broken
for quite a while, and not just with kms, so...). Now if we're
confident that either i915 in 2.6.33 is better than .32.9 already or
that the regressions it introduces can be fixed in the next month or
couple of months, then backporting drm from .33 seems like it would be a
good thing to do for squeeze.

Cheers,
Julien
--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 02-28-2010, 11:52 PM
Ben Hutchings
 
Default Status of kernel X drivers

On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 23:20 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> I think this is something we will also consider doing in Debian. A year
> from now I expect nv to be dead and radeon UMS to be removed upstream,
> making it impractical to backport new hardware support. Given that, the
> maintenance burden for 2.6.33 drm should be lower. But this is really
> outside my area of expertise and certainly not my decision to make.

I understand that the X maintainers would be happy with this. Do I hear
any objections from the kernel team?

> We should probably also consider what this means for drm on the
> 2.6.32-stable branch. Should the drm developers still send patches
> there as well, where applicable? If all the distributions using 2.6.32
> use the backported drm, should we ask Greg K-H to pull that?

This is yet to be considered.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
Horngren's Observation:
Among economists, the real world is often a special case.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:04 PM.

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