kernel acceleration support for older cards

[cb88]

I have two mach64 cards that while slow .... are even slower without the kernel modules which are no longer buildable from current sources as the code was removed from libdrm and supposedly imported to the kernel tree however less mainstream cards are left out which leaves you in a lot of hurt trying to anything something relativly recent.

I believe some SIS chips are also affected.

So what is the path forward with these GPUs? Basically I need fast 2d for skype/firefox and thats it no 3d since the card really isn't up to anything more than opengl 1.3 iirc and no non power of 2 textures.

A few fedora guys seem tp think this is due to lack of interest in cards I doubt that though as other old cards are still supported as far as I know its more a matter of just getting the code in shape for release.

Hopefully someone can get the code pushed through the hoops or tell me otherwise!

[Zhick]

Are you using KMS? 'cause AFAIK as long as you're not using KMS you shouldn't need the drm-module for 2d-accel. All the accel-code is in the DDX (xf86-video-ati).
So if you're using KMS a quick fix might be to disable it.

[cb88]

Are you using KMS? 'cause AFAIK as long as you're not using KMS you shouldn't need the drm-module for 2d-accel. All the accel-code is in the DDX (xf86-video-ati).
So if you're using KMS a quick fix might be to disable it.

KMS has nothing to do with it the mach64.ko module is/was required to enable acceleration since it wasn't built by default for security reasons (There used to be a known exploit which was fixed but never merged in afaik)

Without the kernel side support xf86-video-mach64 driver is comparable to VESA

[curaga]

I firmly believe this is a clever plot by the X devs to gather more devs.
As older drivers get unmaintained, removed from trees, it's merely a question of time until someone annoyed enough appears, learns enough of the driver to get it in shape and starts to maintain it.

Voila, one new graphics dev

/Ontopic:
Svartalf recently posted here that it's not even possible to have this module secure. Not sure why's that, evil hw or lack of interest in the driver.

[cb88]

One would hope they would have used up all that clever brainpower perfecting drivers :-) ... you know rather than deviously deploying clever plots of doom for users of sucky yet still working hardware.

I really don't care on this computer about that level of security it will sit behind a firewall to block most prodding traffic anyway and all of its users are non technical people.