Subject: Re: NVidia question
To: Richard Rauch <email@example.com>
From: Breno Colom <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/11/2002 17:11:04
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Richard Rauch (email@example.com) wrote:
> Um, XFree86 *is* NetBSD's ``graphics subsystem''.
> I think that the lack of 3D support that you allude to is the fact that
> the XFree86 DRI (Direct Rendering Infrastructure) is not supported under
> NetBSD. 3D still should work, but on NetBSD it has to all be done with
> software rendering. I don't know how much is involved in adding DRI
> support. (Presumably it is non-trivial.) Originally, only LINUX had
> this---and it was developed for LINUX by a commercial outfit if memory
> serves. FreeBSD added the hooks necessary to support it.
Yeah, Precision Insight developed the DRI framework.
> My understanding of DRI is that it is essential in order to use XFree86
> 4.x's hardware-accelerated 3D (or rather, specifically Mesa
> (OpenGL-compatible) hardware support), but it may help more mundane
> I am not aware of anyone presently working on DRI under NetBSD. (That
> doesn't mean that no one is working on it. (^&) If there were a
> money-pot earmarked for NetBSD DRI development, I'd put some money in it
> towards getting *someone* to do the work. I'm a grad student on a
> $12,000/year stipend, but I could put $100 or so towards DRI. Get 10 or
> 20 people willing to do the same, and someone who is already almost
> willing to do the work for nothing, and it might get done.
Work is being done to support the complete set of features that Linux
DRI CVS supports, which includes most popular non-nvidia chipsets. As
you can see in this link http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~eanholt/dri/=20
a NetBSD port is in the TODO list ;)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----