On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:59:06PM -0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> Well, from my point of view it was primarily a configuration issue.
>
> However, it does seem rather too easy to shoot yourself in the foot in
> really subtle ways with this stuff right now.
>
> Thinking about it, while X is a rather spectacular victim of this, I
> don't know if there's anything it can do about it itself. I assume that
> it's just trying to innocently use the DRM driver, and it's really the
> DRM driver that's got itself hideously confused?
Alright well I guess we can close it as an X issue. Sounds like most of
the trouble occurs kernel-side, but you can let the kernel team know if
there's changes needed there.
On the foot shooting, I agree, it's probably going to take some time to
digest all these changes, and having so much of the code in the kernel
makes bug analysis a bit more intricate. But so far so good, at least
with Intel; we'll see what happens when we switch KMS on by default.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:59:06PM -0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> Well, from my point of view it was primarily a configuration issue.
>
> However, it does seem rather too easy to shoot yourself in the foot in
> really subtle ways with this stuff right now.
>
> Thinking about it, while X is a rather spectacular victim of this, I
> don't know if there's anything it can do about it itself. I assume that
> it's just trying to innocently use the DRM driver, and it's really the
> DRM driver that's got itself hideously confused?
Alright well I guess we can close it as an X issue. Sounds like most of
the trouble occurs kernel-side, but you can let the kernel team know if
there's changes needed there.
On the foot shooting, I agree, it's probably going to take some time to
digest all these changes, and having so much of the code in the kernel
makes bug analysis a bit more intricate. But so far so good, at least
with Intel; we'll see what happens when we switch KMS on by default.
Bryce