On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:38:25PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Kostas Gewrgiou wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Petr Vandrovec wrote: > > > On 24 Jan 01 at 11:11, Ani Joshi wrote: > > > > I recently ran into an issue with the matroxfb driver and XFree86 > > > > 4.0.2's > > > > matrox driver. Sometime in the past someone decided to use BE > > > > register access in matroxfb for BE machines, while this is probably The > > > > Right Way, it produces problems in X. I can use BE register access > > > > macro's in X but it was causing problems with the engine, perhaps some > > > > DMA > > > > issue although the dma BE bits are on. > > > > > > Using big-endian on PPC was required by PPC users for compatibility with > > > existing XF[86][68]_FBDev servers. Are you sure that there are no problems > > > otherwise, and that it works correctly on all PReP/CHRP/???? > > > architectures? > > > > Nope it won't cause any problems, none of the XF[86][68]_FBDev servers where > > accelerated for matrox, other libs (SDL etc) that have accel for matroxfb > > don't work correctly for ppc either. > > XF68_FBDev is accelerated for matroxfb, at least on the PPC platform.
Er, it is? I thought only Xpmac was... > > Changing the endian to little is the *right* thing, big-endian mode doesn't > > offer us anything beyond problems in matroxfb 8/16 bit accesses become a > > nightmare there... Just my thoughts on this, but the matrox+ppc camp is relativly small (Yes, I know some chrps which now work have 'em) and since I'm guessing (Ani, can you benchmark some of this? :)) XF4 is faster than Xpmac, putting this in now, with a toggle bit for people that really don't wanna upgrade to X4, and removing the toggle in 2.5.. It should be an overall win. -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
