Summary: | Ditching xf86-video-ati in favor of xf86-video-modesetting? | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | xorg | Reporter: | N. W. <nw9165-3201> |
Component: | Driver/Radeon | Assignee: | xf86-video-ati maintainers <xorg-driver-ati> |
Status: | RESOLVED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Xorg Project Team <xorg-team> |
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
i915 platform: | i915 features: |
Description
N. W.
2016-04-06 12:19:49 UTC
Older chips don't have the necessary functionality to support glamor. They still need the asic specific acceleration code. R600 and newer could eventually move to -modesetting once all the features from -ati get ported to -modesetting. (In reply to Alex Deucher from comment #1) > R600 and newer could > eventually move to -modesetting once all the features from -ati get ported > to -modesetting. Is this something that you are planning to do? I mean porting all the features from xf86-video-ati to xf86-video-modesetting? Or are you merely hinting at the possibility that someone could do it, in which case you would think about moving to x86-video-modesetting? Regards (In reply to Alex Deucher from comment #1) > Older chips don't have the necessary functionality to support glamor. They > still need the asic specific acceleration code. R600 and newer could > eventually move to -modesetting once all the features from -ati get ported > to -modesetting. You've made it to the news, see: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Radeon-Modesetting-DDX-Xenial ;D (In reply to N. W. from comment #0) > Hello, > > according to the discussion in the following Phoronix forum thread: > > https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/latest-phoronix-articles/ > 863332-intel-s-unreleased-3-0-x-org-driver-gets-more-fixes-for-dri3-present > > the generic xf86-video-modesetting DDX driver included in xorg-server seems > to be better than most vendor specific xf86-video- drivers. Problems mentioned there are specifically about xf86-video-intel. Although I do agree — it'd be cool if everyone contributed to a single driver. > I am wondering: > > Then why not ditch xf86-video-ati in favor of xf86-video-modesetting? > > Regards I was just wondering alike, but about my local PC. So, just FTR, if anyone would query the internet for the same question: upon research I didn't find much difference between -ati and -modesetting. From the latest benchmarks I found (April 2016) they seem to have comparable performance. Then I looked an activity of both drivers, and found that -modesetting¹ has latest commit 3(!) years ago, whilst -ati² just 4 days ago. So, for end-users: unless you see problems, it's better to stick with -ati. 1: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-modesetting/log/ 2: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-ati/log/ (In reply to Hi-Angel from comment #4) > (In reply to N. W. from comment #0) > > Hello, > > > > according to the discussion in the following Phoronix forum thread: > > > > https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/latest-phoronix-articles/ > > 863332-intel-s-unreleased-3-0-x-org-driver-gets-more-fixes-for-dri3-present > > > > the generic xf86-video-modesetting DDX driver included in xorg-server seems > > to be better than most vendor specific xf86-video- drivers. > > Problems mentioned there are specifically about xf86-video-intel. Although I > do agree — it'd be cool if everyone contributed to a single driver. > > > I am wondering: > > > > Then why not ditch xf86-video-ati in favor of xf86-video-modesetting? > > > > Regards > > I was just wondering alike, but about my local PC. So, just FTR, if anyone > would query the internet for the same question: upon research I didn't find > much difference between -ati and -modesetting. From the latest benchmarks I > found (April 2016) they seem to have comparable performance. Then I looked > an activity of both drivers, and found that -modesetting¹ has latest commit > 3(!) years ago, whilst -ati² just 4 days ago. So, for end-users: unless you > see problems, it's better to stick with -ati. > > 1: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-modesetting/log/ > 2: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-ati/log/ A correction: there seem to be a sound confusion: the official documentation for Glamor¹ points to old location of the code. One can easily get to -modesetting driver code by editing the URL as in "s/glamor/xf86-video-modesetting". I do also know that -modesetting was included into Xserver, which seems to be okay with those URLs, because they located in "xorg" part of repository. Now a plot twist: the documentation is outdated, and the repositories are not the place of the code nowadays. One can see the activity of xf86-video-modesetting here https://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/xserver/log/hw/xfree86/drivers/modesetting I'm very curious to how to edit this "wiki", it's not the first time I see this site provides terribly outdated information. 1: https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/Glamor/ |
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.