On Thu, 3 Nov 2011, David Airlie wrote:
> > Well the current plan I had for this was to do it in userspace, I don't think > the kernel > has any business doing it and I think for the simple USB case its fine but > will fallover > when you get to the non-trivial cases where some sort of acceleration is > required to move > pixels around. But in saying that its good you've done what something, and > I'll try and spend > some time reviewing it. > The reason I opted for doing this in kernel is that I wanted to confine all the changes to a relatively small set of modules. At first this was a pragmatic approach, because I live out of the mainstream development tree and I didn't want to turn my life into an ethernal merging/conflict-resolution activity. However, a more fundamental reason for it is that I didn't want to be tied to X. I deal with some userland applications (that unfortunately I can't provide much detail of .... yet) that live directly on the top of libdrm. So I set myself a goal of "full application transparency". Whatever is thrown at me, I wanted to be able to handle without having to touch any piece of application or library that the application relies on. I think I have achieved this goal and really everything I tried just worked out of the box (with an exception of two bug fixes to ATI DDX and Xorg, that are bugs with or without my work). -- Ilija
