Hello,
I was playing with the git source code and I stumbled over a few things. As I know that at least two people from ATI are on this forum I'm going to post it here.
I've uploaded a few diffs with changes: http://ul.to/u4wpcu (sorry I have no idea where to put the file other than on a free hosting service, as I'm not allowed to attach files here)
The configure script doesn't allow to disable XAA support. The configure.ac.diff adds that possibility.
I tried also to add a switch to disable DRI, but that didn't work. Is it possible to just use DRI2 and not DRI? I guess it should be, because it's possible to compile the X-Server with DRI2 but without DRI.
If one compiles the X-Server with DRI support it will define XF86DRI in some .h files. This is problematic because the Ati driver currently uses this define to decide if DRI support should be compiled into the driver. If think those defines should be renamed so that they don't conflict with X's defines.
After compiling the X-Server (1.7.3) without DRI support I get the following make error for the driver:
Seems like there should be used some #ifdef XF86DRI definition.
The other patches modify some ifdefs and includes. I would be glad if someone could have a look at those patches.
Regards,
Martin
I was playing with the git source code and I stumbled over a few things. As I know that at least two people from ATI are on this forum I'm going to post it here.
I've uploaded a few diffs with changes: http://ul.to/u4wpcu (sorry I have no idea where to put the file other than on a free hosting service, as I'm not allowed to attach files here)
The configure script doesn't allow to disable XAA support. The configure.ac.diff adds that possibility.
I tried also to add a switch to disable DRI, but that didn't work. Is it possible to just use DRI2 and not DRI? I guess it should be, because it's possible to compile the X-Server with DRI2 but without DRI.
If one compiles the X-Server with DRI support it will define XF86DRI in some .h files. This is problematic because the Ati driver currently uses this define to decide if DRI support should be compiled into the driver. If think those defines should be renamed so that they don't conflict with X's defines.
After compiling the X-Server (1.7.3) without DRI support I get the following make error for the driver:
Code:
CC radeon_accel.o radeon_accel.c: In function ?RADEONDRMGetNumPipes?: radeon_accel.c:433: error: ?struct <anonymous>? has no member named ?dri? radeon_accel.c:434: error: ?drm_radeon_getparam_t? undeclared (first use in this function) radeon_accel.c:434: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once radeon_accel.c:434: error: for each function it appears in.) radeon_accel.c:434: error: expected ?;? before ?np? radeon_accel.c:436: error: ?np? undeclared (first use in this function) radeon_accel.c:437: error: ?RADEON_PARAM_NUM_GB_PIPES? undeclared (first use in this function) radeon_accel.c:439: warning: implicit declaration of function ?drmCommandWriteRead? radeon_accel.c:439: error: ?struct <anonymous>? has no member named ?dri? radeon_accel.c:439: error: ?DRM_RADEON_GETPARAM? undeclared (first use in this function) radeon_accel.c:441: error: storage size of ?np2? isn?t known radeon_accel.c:443: error: ?RADEON_INFO_NUM_GB_PIPES? undeclared (first use in this function) radeon_accel.c:444: error: ?struct <anonymous>? has no member named ?dri? radeon_accel.c:444: error: ?DRM_RADEON_INFO? undeclared (first use in this function) radeon_accel.c:441: warning: unused variable ?np2? make[2]: *** [radeon_accel.lo] Error 1 make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make: *** [all] Error 2
The other patches modify some ifdefs and includes. I would be glad if someone could have a look at those patches.
Regards,
Martin
Comment