RE:2.5 and DRM/3D infrastructure?

--1029030645321
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Couldn't support be in user space? The kernel doesnt even come with a bootloader, and 3d is more xfree86 ish...

On 	Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:20:54 +0400 	"Samium Gromoff" <[e-mail]> wrote:

--1029030645321
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.116.70.75]) by smtp.cwctv.net  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.447.44);
	 Sat, 10 Aug 2002 13:32:26 +0100
Received: ([e-mail]) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S316883AbSHJMRL>; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 08:17:11 -0400
Received: ([e-mail]) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S316886AbSHJMRL>; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 08:17:11 -0400
Received: from mx1.mail.ru ([194.67.57.11]:62226 "EHLO mx1.mail.ru")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S316883AbSHJMRJ>;
	Sat, 10 Aug 2002 08:17:09 -0400
Received: from f19.int ([10.0.0.139] helo=f19.mail.ru)
	by mx1.mail.ru with esmtp (Exim MX.1)
	id 17dVEk-0007xP-00
	for [e-mail]; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:20:54 +0400
Received: from mail by f19.mail.ru with local (Exim FE.19)
	id 17dVEk-000HFm-00
	for [e-mail]; Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:20:54 +0400
Received: from [80.79.67.2] by koi.mail.ru with HTTP;
	Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:20:54 +0400
From:	"Samium Gromoff" <[e-mail]>
To:	[e-mail]
Subject: 2.5 and DRM/3D infrastructure?
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19
X-Originating-IP: 192.168.231.142 via proxy [80.79.67.2]
Date:	Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:20:54 +0400
Reply-To: "Samium Gromoff" <[e-mail]>
Content-Type:	text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Sender:	[e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List:	[e-mail]
Return-Path: linux-kernel-owner+Hell.Surfers=[e-mail]

    Regarding the list of planned changes for  2.5 i found that
  nothing is announced regarding DRI/DRM infrastructure.
    
    So i wonder whether the current situation is enough satisfactory,
  or is it just that nobody is interested in such kind of developement?

    Anyhow the current situation looks a bit odd, because we
  basically have support for a quite narrow diapasone of 3D
  accelerators.

  Does it look like the current interface could be not enough mature?

   (Note: this message is intended to catalyse
a fruitful
  discussion. hint, hint...)

---

cheers,
Samium Gromoff__________________
________________