Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Eight Months Later, Intel X.Org 3.0 Driver Still In Development

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,539

    Default Eight Months Later, Intel X.Org 3.0 Driver Still In Development

    Phoronix: Eight Months Later, Intel X.Org 3.0 Driver Still In Development

    Eight months ago today was the first development release of xf86-video-intel 3.0, the X.Org Intel DDX driver, with support for SNA by default and XMir. While Intel reverted their plans to support XMir, this major Intel DDX driver update still hasn't surfaced...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY4MTI

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,267

    Default

    So what's holding it up? Is there some milestone they're shooting for? Blocking bugs?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanL View Post
    So what's holding it up? Is there some milestone they're shooting for? Blocking bugs?
    I don't know how much new code they have to write, but if you pick the solution to write "v2.0" of your software starting from scratch with the goal of using all cool new tools and knowledge then you have to take into account that it will take a long time before the v2.0 will became feature compatible with v1.0. In some cases this approach is needed to breake with bad legacy design decisions.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,039

    Default

    Anything about dri3? I think it isn't even in the upstream repository yet...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    109

    Default

    I would think that anyone who has any driver background in anything is working on DX12.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,116

    Default

    It's not too much of an issue that the 3.0 official release hasn't happened yet given that most distributions ship some form of the Git code from the past few months, and that most of the exciting Intel Linux graphics work happens within the kernel DRM and Mesa, but still it's a bit surprising how long this release is taking to materialize.
    Maybe they prefer quality and a low number of bugs over rushed releases?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by riklaunim View Post
    it will take a long time before the v2.0 will became feature compatible with v1.0. In some cases this approach is needed to break with bad legacy design decisions.
    That's pretty general/vague. These 2.99.x versions are supposed to be release candidates, and they've been coming out for 8 months, so they should be really close to release. I was wondering if there was something specific holding it up. (Looking through git log, it seems like there are still a lot of changes occurring.)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,033

    Default

    I like to think it's a silent protest against the management ordering the Mir support removal.

    "Oh it's still not ready?"
    "No, I'm afraid the frobniz barnicator is still eluding us, and there are several commas in wrong places in comments."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Blocking bugs?



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •