[ubuntu-x] i8xx KMS video overlay support
Geir Ove Myhr
gomyhr at gmail.com
Tue Feb 23 10:02:19 GMT 2010
I know you're offline this week, but maybe you can give us an answer
to this once you're back?
We're considering sticking with -intel 2.9.1 instead of upgrading to
2.10.0 for the upcoming release of Ubuntu, which will be a long term
support release. Of course we would also like KMS video overlay
support to work on i8xx. The drm part will end up in the kernel, but
what exactly do we need to backport from -intel in order to make this
work? Bryce has noted 7 Xv patches from you on Jan 7th. Would that or
a subset of those be sufficient?
Geir Ove Myhr
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Bryce Harrington <bryce at canonical.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 11:52:06AM +0100, Geir Ove Myhr wrote:
>> Hi ubuntu-xers,
>> One of our popular feature requests is support for accelerated video
>> with KMS on i8xx . This is especially important now that UMS
>> support is dropped. This will supported by default with the 2.6.33
>> kernel and -intel driver 2.10.0, but wasn't fully implemented when
>> 2.6.32 reached stable. Since many distros are using 2.6.32, Daniel
>> Vetter (who implemented the overlay support) has made a backport 
>> available for distros to use . He says Debian and Gentoo plans to
>> use this. Any chance of pulling it into Lucid?
>> : https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/395932
>> : http://gitorious.org/daniel-s-linux-stuff/linux-kernel/commits/intel-kms-overlay-for-2.6.32
>> : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2010-January/005372.html
> The 2.6.33 drm will likely either be backported outright or be available
> via l-b-m. So that part of the need should be taken care of one way or
> the other.
> As to the ddx side of things, I'm kind of liking the idea of sticking
> with 2.9.1, to preserve the ability for users to fall back to UMS if
> they need to for some reason. However, getting this bug fixed would be
> nice too.
> In looking through the git tree for -intel, there are 7 Xv patches from
> Daniel Vetter on Jan 7th. I assume one (or more) of these are needed?
> If we can find out, I'd be willing to look at backporting them so 2.9.1.
More information about the Ubuntu-x