On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 14:38:21 +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 09:33:19 +0800, Huang, FrankR wrote: > > > >> Otavio, > >> > >> I saw this thread from top to the end. > >> Is it because the patch > >> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-geode/commit/?id=e9447f5335681a78cf87ebf8c9659a6fecfc9746 > >> block the geode driver to be accepted? > >> If that is so, can we agree with the suggestion from Julien? > >> if ((pGeode->Output & (OUTPUT_PANEL | OUTPUT_DCON)) == > >> (OUTPUT_PANEL | OUTPUT_DCON)) > >> > > Well, or you could make it if (pGeode->Output == (OUTPUT_PANEL | > > OUTPUT_DCON)). Or alternatively, explain why the existing code is > > correct. > > We'll discuss this particular one with Otavio and let him comment on > the solution. > OK. > > Another question is whether your EXA composite paths are reliable enough > > now, or whether we'd better disable them for release. > > I would say that they are a million times better than they were in > 2.11.8 but I don't discount the fact that a few issues remain to iron > out. At the very least, a large number of rendering issues that had > been bugging users for the last two years are finally resolved and > this, IMHO, is a good enough reason to allow 2.11.9 into Squeeze. This > being said, it could very well be that a few issues that Julien > brought up need to be addressed before it happens. > I'd be ok with allowing 2.11.9 in squeeze once the above is clarified or fixed, with the understanding that exa composite acceleration will be disabled if more issues are reported before release. Does that work for you? > Conversely, we'd appreciate if bug #567909 would finally be resolved > on time for Squeeze. > Fixed in git. Guess it slipped through the cracks. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature