From Fri Sep 5 10:53:01 2008 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:53:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Postmaster Subject: Message from mail server Content-Length: 95 Mime-Version: 1.0 Status: RO X-IMAP: 1220637180 23 Delete. This is a system message. --END+PSEUDO-- From egs@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com Thu Aug 28 14:50:11 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7SLoAmp011012 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:50:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7SLo4je017908 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:50:09 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6B00K0HZBKH700@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:50:08 -0600 (MDT) Received: from dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.11.31]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6B006M8ZBJOWB0@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:50:07 -0600 (MDT) Received: from thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com (thirdreef.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.94.117]) by dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7SLo6WD060119; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:50:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7SLgbIF011381; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:42:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from egs@localhost) by thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/Submit) id m7SLgbP8011377; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:42:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:42:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Eric Sultan Subject: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] To: PSARC-ext@sun.com Cc: charmaine.lee@sun.com, david.paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 Content-Length: 1539 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000001 I'm sponsoring this proposal for Charmaine Lee, the timeout to expire on 09/05/2008. The requested release binding is patch. -- Eric Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.64 07/13/07 SMI This information is Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems 1. Introduction 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: rfb Xorg drivers 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier: Author: Charmaine Lee 1.3 Date of This Document: 28 August, 2008 4. Technical Description This project delivers SPARC Xorg support for the currently supported Sun (AMD based) products including XVR-50, XVR-100 and XVR-300 graphics accelerators. The deliverables include a ddx module, a kernel driver, a vts module and an fbconfig module. The driver name is rfb. The source code for these modules is based on the ATI RADEON open source and also on AMD proprietary information. Interfaces exported: /usr/X11/lib/modules/drivers/rfb_drv.so Uncommitted /kernel/drv/sparcv9/rfb Uncommitted /usr/lib/sparcv9/libvtsSUNWrfb.so.1 Uncommitted /usr/lib/fbconfig/libSUNWrfb_conf.so Uncommitted /usr/lib/fbconfig/rfbModes_xorg.conf Uncommitted /usr/share/man/man1m/fbconf_xorg.1m Uncommitted modified man page /usr/share/man/man7d/rfb.7d Uncommitted Interfaces imported: Xorg server CLI/API/ABI External (ref PSARC 2004/187) 6. Resources and Schedule 6.4. Steering Committee requested information 6.4.1. Consolidation C-team Name: Graphics 6.5. ARC review type: FastTrack 6.6. ARC Exposure: open From Alan.Coopersmith@sun.com Thu Aug 28 15:02:36 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7SM2ZvO011762 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:02:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7SM2UVL002601; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:02:32 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6B00J05ZW7KA00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:02:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6B00CIPZW6QW90@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m7SM2Ul3014000; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6B00L01Z848600@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> (original mail from Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from almas.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.106.93]) by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6B0022ZZVA7W50@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:01:58 -0700 From: Alan Coopersmith Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> Sender: Alan.Coopersmith@sun.com To: Eric Sultan Cc: PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071203) Content-Length: 720 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000002 Eric Sultan wrote: > This project delivers SPARC Xorg support for the currently supported > Sun (AMD based) products including XVR-50, XVR-100 and XVR-300 > graphics accelerators. The deliverables include a ddx module, a > kernel driver, a vts module and an fbconfig module. The driver name > is rfb. The source code for these modules is based on the ATI > RADEON open source and also on AMD proprietary information. Don't the pfb & nfb kernel drivers already attach to those devices? What's the relationship? Does a user have to uninstall those and install the rfb kernel driver? -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering From gdamore@sun.com Thu Aug 28 15:29:25 2008 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7SMTPDd012022 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7SMTMlb049723; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:29:24 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6C0000314Z6H00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:29:23 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6C006U214YOND0@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:29:22 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m7SMTGse019934; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:29:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6C008010V3WH00@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from gdamore@sun.com) ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:29:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.7.251.172] by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6C00L9514F7Z50@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:29:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:28:52 -0700 From: "Garrett D'Amore" Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> Sender: Garrett.Damore@sun.com To: Alan Coopersmith Cc: Eric Sultan , PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080616) Content-Length: 1209 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000003 Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Eric Sultan wrote: > >> This project delivers SPARC Xorg support for the currently supported >> Sun (AMD based) products including XVR-50, XVR-100 and XVR-300 >> graphics accelerators. The deliverables include a ddx module, a >> kernel driver, a vts module and an fbconfig module. The driver name >> is rfb. The source code for these modules is based on the ATI >> RADEON open source and also on AMD proprietary information. >> > > Don't the pfb & nfb kernel drivers already attach to those devices? > What's the relationship? Does a user have to uninstall those and > install the rfb kernel driver? > > Changing driver names is *usually* a royal PITA. *HOWEVER*, framebuffer drivers are unlikely to have their names coded in many places, so I think this might be OK. But I'd imagine the pfb/nfb drivers would indeed need to be uninstalled (possibly a conflict entry recorded in the pkginfo.) It would be easier if the driver names didn't change. While not architectural, will these drivers be released as Open Source (CDDL or otherwise)? The case doesn't make this clear, and I worry about "AMD proprietary information". -- Garrett From Eric.Sultan@sun.com Thu Aug 28 15:47:07 2008 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7SMl7jJ012142 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:47:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7SMl5o9055201; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:47:06 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6C00C1T1YHFD00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:47:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.98.34]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6C003GV1YG8Z50@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m7SMl4Uo011463; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:47:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6C005011K89O00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Eric.Sultan@Sun.COM); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:47:04 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [129.146.94.117] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6C0079R1YEND90@mail-amer.sun.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:47:04 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:47:02 -0700 From: Eric Sultan Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> Sender: Eric.Sultan@sun.com To: "Garrett D'Amore" Cc: Alan Coopersmith , Eric Sultan , PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Reply-to: Eric.Sultan@sun.com Message-id: <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070622) Content-Length: 2433 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000004 I was just framing a reply to Alan's question, and wasn't quite sure what to say but I'll try anyway. I'd not thought of the rfb driver as a rename of the nfb and pfb drivers. It's an entirely different entity that does, as Alan pointed out, drive the same devices. I see your point, though, that this could be considered a rename of the two existing drivers. I'd need to consult with someone that knows release engineering better than I, but I'd think that the rfb driver should be made mutually exclusive of the nfb and pfb drivers. I'm not familiar enough with packaging and installation issues to know how to achieve this. Both drivers can exist in the system without competing with each other. The first one found in the /etc/driver_aliases file is the one that would be used, but this doesn't seem to provide a useful mechanism for binding the driver to the device. We made the statement about the source coming from open source code and also from ATI/AMD proprietary information so indicate that we do not at this time have permission to deliver the source. I believe it's the project's intent to pursue this with AMD. -- Eric Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> Eric Sultan wrote: >> >>> This project delivers SPARC Xorg support for the currently supported >>> Sun (AMD based) products including XVR-50, XVR-100 and XVR-300 >>> graphics accelerators. The deliverables include a ddx module, a >>> kernel driver, a vts module and an fbconfig module. The driver name >>> is rfb. The source code for these modules is based on the ATI >>> RADEON open source and also on AMD proprietary information. >>> >> >> Don't the pfb & nfb kernel drivers already attach to those devices? >> What's the relationship? Does a user have to uninstall those and >> install the rfb kernel driver? >> >> > Changing driver names is *usually* a royal PITA. *HOWEVER*, > framebuffer drivers are unlikely to have their names coded in many > places, so I think this might be OK. But I'd imagine the pfb/nfb > drivers would indeed need to be uninstalled (possibly a conflict entry > recorded in the pkginfo.) > > It would be easier if the driver names didn't change. > > While not architectural, will these drivers be released as Open Source > (CDDL or otherwise)? The case doesn't make this clear, and I worry > about "AMD proprietary information". > > -- Garrett > From Alan.Coopersmith@sun.com Thu Aug 28 15:51:21 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7SMpKGn012157 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:51:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7SMpBN1007342; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:51:17 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6C0010725GRL00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:51:16 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6C006FI25FOLE0@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:51:15 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m7SMpEXY022132; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6C00D011SL0B00@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> (original mail from Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from almas.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.106.93]) by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6C00D9R2588G90@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:51:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:51:07 -0700 From: Alan Coopersmith Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> Sender: Alan.Coopersmith@sun.com To: Eric.Sultan@sun.com Cc: "Garrett D'Amore" , Eric Sultan , PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071203) Content-Length: 913 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000005 Eric Sultan wrote: > I'd need to consult with someone that knows release engineering better > than I, but I'd think that the rfb driver should be made mutually > exclusive of the nfb and pfb drivers. I'm not familiar enough with > packaging and installation issues to know how to achieve this. I don't think there is a way to do this other than choose one to not include with Solaris. > Both drivers can exist in the system without competing with each other. > The first one found in the /etc/driver_aliases file is the one that > would be used, but this doesn't seem to provide a useful mechanism for > binding the driver to the device. So how would users choose which to run? Why does a different kernel driver even need to be provided - can't the Xorg ddx module work with the old ones? -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering From gdamore@sun.com Thu Aug 28 16:03:31 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7SN3Utm012977 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:03:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7SN3MEr011831; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:03:28 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6C0020N2PQO800@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:03:26 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6C0026S2PPLP00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:03:25 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m7SN3OgX020738; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6C00D012ITG800@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from gdamore@sun.com) ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.7.251.172] by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6C00BOJ2PIC720@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:03:07 -0700 From: "Garrett D'Amore" Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> Sender: Garrett.Damore@sun.com To: Alan Coopersmith Cc: Eric.Sultan@sun.com, Eric Sultan , PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080616) Content-Length: 1342 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000006 Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Eric Sultan wrote: > >> I'd need to consult with someone that knows release engineering better >> than I, but I'd think that the rfb driver should be made mutually >> exclusive of the nfb and pfb drivers. I'm not familiar enough with >> packaging and installation issues to know how to achieve this. >> > > I don't think there is a way to do this other than choose one to not > include with Solaris. > Yes. And it creates nightmares on upgrade. If at all possible, I *highly* recommend renaming the driver to the legacy names, so it appears as a "drop in" replacement. > >> Both drivers can exist in the system without competing with each other. >> The first one found in the /etc/driver_aliases file is the one that >> would be used, but this doesn't seem to provide a useful mechanism for >> binding the driver to the device. >> > > So how would users choose which to run? Why does a different kernel driver > even need to be provided - can't the Xorg ddx module work with the old ones? > Good point -- I look forward to Eric's reply. As an aside, I'm disappointed about the open source, but hopefully we'll at least get binary redistribution rights? I'm also not sure what the etiquette of submitting an open ARC case for a closed source bit of software is. -- Garrett From edward.pilatowicz@sun.com Thu Aug 28 18:30:31 2008 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7T1UVnm016884 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:30:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7T1UUkG010661; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:30:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6C007019ITMS00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:30:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mcescher.eng.sun.com ([129.146.224.55]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6C003W29IT8ZE0@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:30:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mcescher.eng.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mcescher.eng.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m7T1UTdu133539; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:30:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from edp@localhost) by mcescher.eng.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id m7T1UT27133538; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:30:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:30:29 -0700 From: Edward Pilatowicz Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> To: Eric Sultan Cc: PSARC-ext@sun.com, charmaine.lee@sun.com, david.paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <20080829013028.GA102473@eng.sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> X-Authentication-warning: mcescher.eng.sun.com: edp set sender to edward.pilatowicz@sun.com using -f User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Content-Length: 1942 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000007 does this new kernel framebuffer driver support the kernel terminal emulator? ie, does it implement the driver interfaces required by: PSARC/2003/432 Coherent Console PSARC/2004/105 Simplified Visual_io Versioning PSARC/2004/236 Update to Coherent Console ed On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 02:42:37PM -0700, Eric Sultan wrote: > I'm sponsoring this proposal for Charmaine Lee, the timeout to expire on > 09/05/2008. The requested release binding is patch. > > -- Eric > > > Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.64 07/13/07 SMI > This information is Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems > 1. Introduction > 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: > rfb Xorg drivers > 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier: > Author: Charmaine Lee > 1.3 Date of This Document: > 28 August, 2008 > > 4. Technical Description > > This project delivers SPARC Xorg support for the currently supported > Sun (AMD based) products including XVR-50, XVR-100 and XVR-300 > graphics accelerators. The deliverables include a ddx module, a > kernel driver, a vts module and an fbconfig module. The driver name > is rfb. The source code for these modules is based on the ATI > RADEON open source and also on AMD proprietary information. > > Interfaces exported: > > /usr/X11/lib/modules/drivers/rfb_drv.so Uncommitted > /kernel/drv/sparcv9/rfb Uncommitted > /usr/lib/sparcv9/libvtsSUNWrfb.so.1 Uncommitted > /usr/lib/fbconfig/libSUNWrfb_conf.so Uncommitted > /usr/lib/fbconfig/rfbModes_xorg.conf Uncommitted > /usr/share/man/man1m/fbconf_xorg.1m Uncommitted modified man page > /usr/share/man/man7d/rfb.7d Uncommitted > > Interfaces imported: > > Xorg server CLI/API/ABI External (ref PSARC 2004/187) > > 6. Resources and Schedule > 6.4. Steering Committee requested information > 6.4.1. Consolidation C-team Name: > Graphics > 6.5. ARC review type: FastTrack > 6.6. ARC Exposure: open From Eric.Sultan@sun.com Fri Aug 29 11:20:12 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7TIKBsZ011872 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:20:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7TIK5rG024382; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:20:08 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6D00503K9J8C00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6D0055AK9I3P00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m7TIK60u025209; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:20:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6D00401JY7JG00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Eric.Sultan@Sun.COM); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:20:05 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [129.146.94.117] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6D004ZPK95U750@mail-amer.sun.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:19:54 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:19:53 -0700 From: Eric Sultan Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> Sender: Eric.Sultan@sun.com To: "Garrett D'Amore" Cc: Alan Coopersmith , Eric Sultan , PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Reply-to: Eric.Sultan@sun.com Message-id: <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070622) Content-Length: 2337 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000008 The intended delivery target for rfb is OpenSolaris. The OpenSolaris system will not support Xsun, and hence will not have the Xsun-compatible pfb and nfb software components. There should not be a conflict, then, between pfb/nfb and rfb. Alan asked about whether the pfb/nfb kernel device drivers could be modified to work with the Xorg ddx module. In theory, they could, but it would produce a rather chimerical product. The rfb product, for example, uses the DRI/DRM, and the pfb/nfb products do not. Since Xsun has been EOL'd and we're working towards an Xorg environment, the project chose to move forwards with an opensource-derived Xorg-compliant support for the XVRs 50, 100, and 300. Edward asked if rfb would support the Coherent Console system. Yes, that is the plan (and should be, since it's the SPARC graphics team that originally requested Coherent Console support). -- Eric Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> Eric Sultan wrote: >> >>> I'd need to consult with someone that knows release engineering better >>> than I, but I'd think that the rfb driver should be made mutually >>> exclusive of the nfb and pfb drivers. I'm not familiar enough with >>> packaging and installation issues to know how to achieve this. >>> >> >> I don't think there is a way to do this other than choose one to not >> include with Solaris. >> > > Yes. And it creates nightmares on upgrade. If at all possible, I > *highly* recommend renaming the driver to the legacy names, so it > appears as a "drop in" replacement. > >> >>> Both drivers can exist in the system without competing with each >>> other. The first one found in the /etc/driver_aliases file is the >>> one that >>> would be used, but this doesn't seem to provide a useful mechanism for >>> binding the driver to the device. >>> >> >> So how would users choose which to run? Why does a different kernel >> driver >> even need to be provided - can't the Xorg ddx module work with the >> old ones? >> > > Good point -- I look forward to Eric's reply. > > As an aside, I'm disappointed about the open source, but hopefully > we'll at least get binary redistribution rights? I'm also not sure > what the etiquette of submitting an open ARC case for a closed source > bit of software is. > > -- Garrett > From gdamore@sun.com Fri Aug 29 11:32:48 2008 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7TIWlnq012189 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7TIWirr004014; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:32:47 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6D0050XKULT100@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6D005DCKUK3O10@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m7TIWiih000180; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6D00201KSLB000@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> (original mail from gdamore@sun.com) ; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.7.251.172] by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6D00KVPKUKAMF0@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:32:29 -0700 From: "Garrett D'Amore" Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> Sender: Garrett.Damore@sun.com To: Eric.Sultan@sun.com Cc: Alan Coopersmith , Eric Sultan , PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080616) Content-Length: 3284 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000009 Eric Sultan wrote: > The intended delivery target for rfb is OpenSolaris. The OpenSolaris > system will not support Xsun, and hence will not have the > Xsun-compatible pfb and nfb software components. There should not be > a conflict, then, between pfb/nfb and rfb. > > Alan asked about whether the pfb/nfb kernel device drivers could be > modified to work with the Xorg ddx module. In theory, they could, but > it would produce a rather chimerical product. The rfb product, for > example, uses the DRI/DRM, and the pfb/nfb products do not. > > Since Xsun has been EOL'd and we're working towards an Xorg > environment, the project chose to move forwards with an > opensource-derived Xorg-compliant support for the XVRs 50, 100, and 300. > > Edward asked if rfb would support the Coherent Console system. Yes, > that is the plan (and should be, since it's the SPARC graphics team > that originally requested Coherent Console support). The only objection I have here is that the EOL of Xsun is not *just* for OpenSolaris, but also for whatever Solaris release (11.x?) might follow S10. I would really encourage the project team to consider a solution where the driver names don't change, so that an upgrade from S10 (or earlier) to this driver could be done "painlessly". Having different device driver names for S10 and OpenSolaris is only likely to increase pain elsewhere in the future. (And yes, this is a Sun-only concern, not really related to OpenSolaris, but it is worth resolving nonetheless.) Its also possible that at some time in the future, "upgrades" between Solaris (Sun) and OpenSolaris might be desired. While there are numerous technical hurdles to solve for such, I would prefer to avoid putting in *new* hurdles if I could help it. -- Garrett > > -- Eric > > > > Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>> Eric Sultan wrote: >>> >>>> I'd need to consult with someone that knows release engineering better >>>> than I, but I'd think that the rfb driver should be made mutually >>>> exclusive of the nfb and pfb drivers. I'm not familiar enough with >>>> packaging and installation issues to know how to achieve this. >>>> >>> >>> I don't think there is a way to do this other than choose one to not >>> include with Solaris. >>> >> >> Yes. And it creates nightmares on upgrade. If at all possible, I >> *highly* recommend renaming the driver to the legacy names, so it >> appears as a "drop in" replacement. >> >>> >>>> Both drivers can exist in the system without competing with each >>>> other. The first one found in the /etc/driver_aliases file is the >>>> one that >>>> would be used, but this doesn't seem to provide a useful mechanism for >>>> binding the driver to the device. >>>> >>> >>> So how would users choose which to run? Why does a different >>> kernel driver >>> even need to be provided - can't the Xorg ddx module work with the >>> old ones? >>> >> >> Good point -- I look forward to Eric's reply. >> >> As an aside, I'm disappointed about the open source, but hopefully >> we'll at least get binary redistribution rights? I'm also not sure >> what the etiquette of submitting an open ARC case for a closed source >> bit of software is. >> >> -- Garrett >> > From Eric.Sultan@Sun.COM Fri Aug 29 14:00:08 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7TL07J8017459 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:00:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7TKxlA9024198; Sat, 30 Aug 2008 05:00:04 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6D00C0NRO3Q900@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:00:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.98.34]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6D005MSRO23PA0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m7TL02ix016192; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:00:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6D00001QM1LO00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Eric.Sultan@Sun.COM); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:00:02 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [129.146.94.117] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6D004K1RNDU7E0@mail-amer.sun.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:59:39 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:59:36 -0700 From: Eric Sultan Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> Sender: Eric.Sultan@Sun.COM To: "Garrett D'Amore" Cc: Alan Coopersmith , Eric Sultan , PSARC-ext@Sun.COM, Charmaine.Lee@Sun.COM, David.Paist@Sun.COM, ron.bielaski@Sun.COM Reply-to: Eric.Sultan@Sun.COM Message-id: <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070622) Content-Length: 4244 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000010 I'm not sure I properly understand the dimensions of the problem. Wherever Xsun has been EOL'd and removed, there should not be any compatibility issues. When Xsun is removed, so must Xsun-only components such as nfb and pfb. Issues of coexistence could occur in systems that support both Xsun and Xorg, and so might want both nfb/pfb or rfb. If this is an issue, the driver binding can be unambiguously specified in the /etc/driver_aliases file. Using the rfb code as a drop-in replacement for the nfb/pfb code doesn't solve the problem. When one *wants* to run Xsun on a system that has both Xsun and Xorg support, one would need the old nfb or pfb drivers instead of the Xorg-compliant rfb driver. Renaming rfb as nfb and pfb wouldn't get the job done, would it? Am I missing something here? -- Eric Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Eric Sultan wrote: >> The intended delivery target for rfb is OpenSolaris. The OpenSolaris >> system will not support Xsun, and hence will not have the >> Xsun-compatible pfb and nfb software components. There should not be >> a conflict, then, between pfb/nfb and rfb. >> >> Alan asked about whether the pfb/nfb kernel device drivers could be >> modified to work with the Xorg ddx module. In theory, they could, >> but it would produce a rather chimerical product. The rfb product, >> for example, uses the DRI/DRM, and the pfb/nfb products do not. >> >> Since Xsun has been EOL'd and we're working towards an Xorg >> environment, the project chose to move forwards with an >> opensource-derived Xorg-compliant support for the XVRs 50, 100, and 300. >> >> Edward asked if rfb would support the Coherent Console system. Yes, >> that is the plan (and should be, since it's the SPARC graphics team >> that originally requested Coherent Console support). > > The only objection I have here is that the EOL of Xsun is not *just* > for OpenSolaris, but also for whatever Solaris release (11.x?) might > follow S10. I would really encourage the project team to consider a > solution where the driver names don't change, so that an upgrade from > S10 (or earlier) to this driver could be done "painlessly". > > Having different device driver names for S10 and OpenSolaris is only > likely to increase pain elsewhere in the future. (And yes, this is a > Sun-only concern, not really related to OpenSolaris, but it is worth > resolving nonetheless.) > > Its also possible that at some time in the future, "upgrades" between > Solaris (Sun) and OpenSolaris might be desired. While there are > numerous technical hurdles to solve for such, I would prefer to avoid > putting in *new* hurdles if I could help it. > > -- Garrett >> >> -- Eric >> >> >> >> Garrett D'Amore wrote: >>> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>>> Eric Sultan wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'd need to consult with someone that knows release engineering >>>>> better >>>>> than I, but I'd think that the rfb driver should be made mutually >>>>> exclusive of the nfb and pfb drivers. I'm not familiar enough with >>>>> packaging and installation issues to know how to achieve this. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't think there is a way to do this other than choose one to not >>>> include with Solaris. >>>> >>> >>> Yes. And it creates nightmares on upgrade. If at all possible, I >>> *highly* recommend renaming the driver to the legacy names, so it >>> appears as a "drop in" replacement. >>> >>>> >>>>> Both drivers can exist in the system without competing with each >>>>> other. The first one found in the /etc/driver_aliases file is the >>>>> one that >>>>> would be used, but this doesn't seem to provide a useful mechanism >>>>> for >>>>> binding the driver to the device. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So how would users choose which to run? Why does a different >>>> kernel driver >>>> even need to be provided - can't the Xorg ddx module work with the >>>> old ones? >>>> >>> >>> Good point -- I look forward to Eric's reply. >>> >>> As an aside, I'm disappointed about the open source, but hopefully >>> we'll at least get binary redistribution rights? I'm also not sure >>> what the etiquette of submitting an open ARC case for a closed >>> source bit of software is. >>> >>> -- Garrett >>> >> > From gdamore@sun.com Fri Aug 29 14:13:58 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7TLDwKf017932 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7TLDawa026220; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:13:55 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6D00D01SB5FO00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6D005VPSB53LA0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m7TLDrER017346; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6D00M01SAENZ00@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from gdamore@sun.com) ; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.7.251.172] by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6D007AJSB4OX40@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:13:38 -0700 From: "Garrett D'Amore" Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> Sender: Garrett.Damore@sun.com To: Eric.Sultan@sun.com Cc: Alan Coopersmith , Eric Sultan , PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080616) Content-Length: 4903 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000011 Eric Sultan wrote: > I'm not sure I properly understand the dimensions of the problem. > Wherever Xsun has been EOL'd and removed, there should not be any > compatibility issues. When Xsun is removed, so must Xsun-only > components such as nfb and pfb. Issues of coexistence could occur in > systems that support both Xsun and Xorg, and so might want both > nfb/pfb or rfb. If this is an issue, the driver binding can be > unambiguously specified in the /etc/driver_aliases file. > > Using the rfb code as a drop-in replacement for the nfb/pfb code > doesn't solve the problem. When one *wants* to run Xsun on a system > that has both Xsun and Xorg support, one would need the old nfb or pfb > drivers instead of the Xorg-compliant rfb driver. > Renaming rfb as nfb and pfb wouldn't get the job done, would it? > > Am I missing something here? Yes, I think you are. What I'm talking about is an upgrade of Solaris 10 (or earlier!) to Solaris Nevada (or later). To be quite honest, I doubt many people care whether Xsun or Xorg is running on their system, provided that they have *X11* for their *hardware*. That's why I'm proposing that you treat rfb as a drop in. It doesn't have to drop in to Xsun, but it should drop in from a user-experience perspective. (Modulo some known differences, such as lack of Display PostScript.) -- Garrett > > -- Eric > > > Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> Eric Sultan wrote: >>> The intended delivery target for rfb is OpenSolaris. The >>> OpenSolaris system will not support Xsun, and hence will not have >>> the Xsun-compatible pfb and nfb software components. There should >>> not be a conflict, then, between pfb/nfb and rfb. >>> >>> Alan asked about whether the pfb/nfb kernel device drivers could be >>> modified to work with the Xorg ddx module. In theory, they could, >>> but it would produce a rather chimerical product. The rfb product, >>> for example, uses the DRI/DRM, and the pfb/nfb products do not. >>> >>> Since Xsun has been EOL'd and we're working towards an Xorg >>> environment, the project chose to move forwards with an >>> opensource-derived Xorg-compliant support for the XVRs 50, 100, and >>> 300. >>> >>> Edward asked if rfb would support the Coherent Console system. Yes, >>> that is the plan (and should be, since it's the SPARC graphics team >>> that originally requested Coherent Console support). >> >> The only objection I have here is that the EOL of Xsun is not *just* >> for OpenSolaris, but also for whatever Solaris release (11.x?) might >> follow S10. I would really encourage the project team to consider a >> solution where the driver names don't change, so that an upgrade from >> S10 (or earlier) to this driver could be done "painlessly". >> >> Having different device driver names for S10 and OpenSolaris is only >> likely to increase pain elsewhere in the future. (And yes, this is a >> Sun-only concern, not really related to OpenSolaris, but it is worth >> resolving nonetheless.) >> >> Its also possible that at some time in the future, "upgrades" between >> Solaris (Sun) and OpenSolaris might be desired. While there are >> numerous technical hurdles to solve for such, I would prefer to avoid >> putting in *new* hurdles if I could help it. >> >> -- Garrett >>> >>> -- Eric >>> >>> >>> >>> Garrett D'Amore wrote: >>>> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>>>> Eric Sultan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'd need to consult with someone that knows release engineering >>>>>> better >>>>>> than I, but I'd think that the rfb driver should be made mutually >>>>>> exclusive of the nfb and pfb drivers. I'm not familiar enough with >>>>>> packaging and installation issues to know how to achieve this. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't think there is a way to do this other than choose one to not >>>>> include with Solaris. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes. And it creates nightmares on upgrade. If at all possible, I >>>> *highly* recommend renaming the driver to the legacy names, so it >>>> appears as a "drop in" replacement. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Both drivers can exist in the system without competing with each >>>>>> other. The first one found in the /etc/driver_aliases file is the >>>>>> one that >>>>>> would be used, but this doesn't seem to provide a useful >>>>>> mechanism for >>>>>> binding the driver to the device. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So how would users choose which to run? Why does a different >>>>> kernel driver >>>>> even need to be provided - can't the Xorg ddx module work with the >>>>> old ones? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Good point -- I look forward to Eric's reply. >>>> >>>> As an aside, I'm disappointed about the open source, but hopefully >>>> we'll at least get binary redistribution rights? I'm also not sure >>>> what the etiquette of submitting an open ARC case for a closed >>>> source bit of software is. >>>> >>>> -- Garrett >>>> >>> >> > From Darren.Moffat@sun.com Mon Sep 1 02:27:08 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m819R7bb028052 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 02:27:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m819QfV6010546; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 10:27:05 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6I00I19FL3WD00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:27:03 -0600 (MDT) Received: from gmp-eb-inf-2.sun.com ([192.18.6.24]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6I00975FL23960@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:27:02 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-emea-10.sun.com (gmp-eb-lb-2-fe3.eu.sun.com [192.18.6.12]) by gmp-eb-inf-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m819R1e5017806; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:27:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-emea-10.sun.com by fe-emea-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6I00401EX3CN00@fe-emea-10.sun.com> (original mail from Darren.Moffat@Sun.COM); Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:27:01 +0100 (BST) Received: from [129.156.173.21] by fe-emea-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6I00E2KFKZ5MB0@fe-emea-10.sun.com>; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:27:00 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:26:59 +0100 From: Darren J Moffat Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> Sender: Darren.Moffat@sun.com To: "Garrett D'Amore" Cc: Eric.Sultan@sun.com, Alan Coopersmith , Eric Sultan , PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080811) Content-Length: 3027 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000012 Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Eric Sultan wrote: >> I'm not sure I properly understand the dimensions of the problem. >> Wherever Xsun has been EOL'd and removed, there should not be any >> compatibility issues. When Xsun is removed, so must Xsun-only >> components such as nfb and pfb. Issues of coexistence could occur in >> systems that support both Xsun and Xorg, and so might want both >> nfb/pfb or rfb. If this is an issue, the driver binding can be >> unambiguously specified in the /etc/driver_aliases file. >> >> Using the rfb code as a drop-in replacement for the nfb/pfb code >> doesn't solve the problem. When one *wants* to run Xsun on a system >> that has both Xsun and Xorg support, one would need the old nfb or pfb >> drivers instead of the Xorg-compliant rfb driver. >> Renaming rfb as nfb and pfb wouldn't get the job done, would it? >> >> Am I missing something here? > > Yes, I think you are. > > What I'm talking about is an upgrade of Solaris 10 (or earlier!) to > Solaris Nevada (or later). To be quite honest, I doubt many people care > whether Xsun or Xorg is running on their system, provided that they have > *X11* for their *hardware*. There is no such upgrade path at the moment (S10 or SX:CE to OpenSolaris IPS based system) so lets not assume that *if* one is developed it can't be taught to deal with this problem of switching from Xsun (and its associated kernel drivers) to Xorg. At this time we don't even know if the hardware that the new rfb driver will be supported on these future releases because we don't know when they are. If you are running S10 or SPARC today or SX:CE on SPARC and upgrade to an SX:CE release then the default is still Xsun and the older pfb/nfb drivers will still be in your driver_aliases. If someone wishes to manually switch to Xorg/rfb on SX:CE then that is a concious choice and will require manual intervention - documentation of how to do that would be an excellent thing for this case to provide. If you install the yet to be released OpenSolaris on SPARC the you won't have Xsun and never will have had it or pfb/nfb you only have Xorg and this rfb delivered by this case. You are really solving a problem that doesn't exist, lets not give the project team more work to do. > That's why I'm proposing that you treat rfb as a drop in. It doesn't > have to drop in to Xsun, but it should drop in from a user-experience > perspective. (Modulo some known differences, such as lack of Display > PostScript.) I think in this case it is a bad idea. This isn't like the problems seen in networking drivers. By requiring rfb to be a dropin replacement for pfb/nfb you means more work for the project team to solve a problem that I really don't think exists. I believe we will have better architecture by not forcing rfb to be a drop in replacement for the old Xsun based architecture. For comparison the equivalent thing was not required of x86 when it made the switch from Xsun to Xorg. -- Darren J Moffat From gdamore@sun.com Mon Sep 1 09:33:02 2008 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m81GX2ag006450 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m81GX1qH012600; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6I00B0DZB1PF00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6I009U0ZB07390@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m81GX0em022611; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6I00G01Z7O1300@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from gdamore@sun.com) ; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.7.251.172] by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6I00JQ3ZAZ5H60@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com>; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:32:32 -0700 From: "Garrett D'Amore" Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> Sender: Garrett.Damore@sun.com To: Darren J Moffat Cc: Eric.Sultan@sun.com, Alan Coopersmith , Eric Sultan , PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <48BC1920.9010401@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080616) Content-Length: 6325 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000013 Darren J Moffat wrote: > Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> Eric Sultan wrote: >>> I'm not sure I properly understand the dimensions of the problem. >>> Wherever Xsun has been EOL'd and removed, there should not be any >>> compatibility issues. When Xsun is removed, so must Xsun-only >>> components such as nfb and pfb. Issues of coexistence could occur >>> in systems that support both Xsun and Xorg, and so might want both >>> nfb/pfb or rfb. If this is an issue, the driver binding can be >>> unambiguously specified in the /etc/driver_aliases file. >>> >>> Using the rfb code as a drop-in replacement for the nfb/pfb code >>> doesn't solve the problem. When one *wants* to run Xsun on a system >>> that has both Xsun and Xorg support, one would need the old nfb or >>> pfb drivers instead of the Xorg-compliant rfb driver. >>> Renaming rfb as nfb and pfb wouldn't get the job done, would it? >>> >>> Am I missing something here? >> >> Yes, I think you are. >> >> What I'm talking about is an upgrade of Solaris 10 (or earlier!) to >> Solaris Nevada (or later). To be quite honest, I doubt many people >> care whether Xsun or Xorg is running on their system, provided that >> they have *X11* for their *hardware*. > > There is no such upgrade path at the moment (S10 or SX:CE to > OpenSolaris IPS based system) so lets not assume that *if* one is > developed it can't be taught to deal with this problem of switching > from Xsun (and its associated kernel drivers) to Xorg. At this time > we don't even know if the hardware that the new rfb driver will be > supported on these future releases because we don't know when they are. I'm unhappy with designs which exclusively rely on OpenSolaris being non-upgradeable, particularly if the product in question is intended for SX:CE (and ultimately possibly some future Solaris 11 product). Right now the relationship between SX:CE (and indeed Solaris itself) and OpenSolaris releases is not adequately defined, I think, to say that no upgrade path will ever be desired by some significant percentage of Sun customers. (Put another way--- IPS not being upgradeable isn't a problem, since its not a Solaris Express technology -- yet, but I think this case is different because the new driver is equally applicable to both Solaris Express and OpenSolaris. And more to the point, the EOF of Xsun is relevant to Solaris Express. > > If you are running S10 or SPARC today or SX:CE on SPARC and upgrade to > an SX:CE release then the default is still Xsun and the older pfb/nfb > drivers will still be in your driver_aliases. If someone wishes to > manually switch to Xorg/rfb on SX:CE then that is a concious choice > and will require manual intervention - documentation of how to do that > would be an excellent thing for this case to provide. However, at some time soon, I believe, the Xsun drivers will go away, and all that will remain will be this new driver. Its worth some effort to try to make the upgrade smooth as possible. > > If you install the yet to be released OpenSolaris on SPARC the you > won't have Xsun and never will have had it or pfb/nfb you only have > Xorg and > this rfb delivered by this case. > > You are really solving a problem that doesn't exist, lets not give the > project team more work to do. I don't think the problem doesn't exist, or I wouldn't have mentioned it. I'm not worried about just OpenSolaris, but Solaris Express. > >> That's why I'm proposing that you treat rfb as a drop in. It doesn't >> have to drop in to Xsun, but it should drop in from a user-experience >> perspective. (Modulo some known differences, such as lack of >> Display PostScript.) > > I think in this case it is a bad idea. This isn't like the problems > seen in networking drivers. By requiring rfb to be a dropin > replacement for pfb/nfb you means more work for the project team to > solve a problem that I really don't think exists. I believe we will > have better architecture by not forcing rfb to be a drop in > replacement for the old Xsun based architecture. /etc/driver_aliases conflicts are a major PITA. There are hackish workarounds, but its far better, IMO, to avoid the conflict in the first place, if possible. There is also some user accessible knobs (/dev/fb/ links, for example), where its better, IMO, if we don't change the knobs. > > For comparison the equivalent thing was not required of x86 when it > made the switch from Xsun to Xorg. > That's an interesting datapoint. I'm not sure how good the comparison is though, given the very different architecture of how framebuffer drivers work on x86 versus SPARC. (IIUC, most of the Xsun drivers did not have kernel drivers with them, apart from some kind of generic VGA/VESA mapping driver, whereas the SPARC framebuffer drivers do far more including full rendering of the text console. But maybe someone else will correct me if I've misunderstood.) In any case, all of my comments in this case are at most TCA class advisories/requests, and I don't think the work is terribly complicated. If analysis shows otherwise, or there are other reasons not to take the effort, then I wouldn't object to just delivering rfb. (But I *suspect* that the work required is an hour or two at most, not weeks or even days of effort.) If we can save a few tens of hours dealing with service calls by an upfront hour in engineering, I generally think its a good tradeoff. But then, my view has always been that it is appropriate for ARC members to request or recommend that project teams do more work if it can improve the project. Project teams working with business teams ultimately make the decision about whether the work is justified or not. Anyway, in this case, I already spent about 30 mins on the phone with Eric Sultan talking about my concerns, and how to address them, and offered some specific example code to look at. Eric graciously agreed to think about it, and get back to me. And ultimately, if he tells me the project team has decided not to pursue my suggestions for one reason or another, then I'll be fine with it. (And I'll be confident that at least the decision that was made was done from an informed point of view, which is really all any of us can ask.) -- Garrett From Eric.Sultan@sun.com Tue Sep 2 14:32:49 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m82LWmae021929 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m82LWfRd014181; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 05:32:46 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6L00L037UKRY00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6L00KQ27UJ5Y20@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m82LWh33020584; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:32:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6L00I014WYXU00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Eric.Sultan@Sun.COM); Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:32:43 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [129.146.94.117] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6L00M0X7UCZVD0@mail-amer.sun.com>; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:32:37 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:32:36 -0700 From: Eric Sultan Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48BC1920.9010401@sun.com> Sender: Eric.Sultan@sun.com To: "Garrett D'Amore" Cc: Darren J Moffat , Alan Coopersmith , Eric Sultan , PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Reply-to: Eric.Sultan@sun.com Message-id: <48BDB0F4.1090507@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> <48BC1920.9010401@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070622) Content-Length: 8258 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000014 I've considered Garrett's concerns and had a small out-of-band discussion with him to be sure I understood his perspective. I concede his point, and discussed it with the project team and tried to find a way to accommodate the concern about renaming support for an existing device. I'd considered using a thin layer in the kernel to allow the user to continue to use the nfb and pfb names, while plumbing to the rfb modules. This could allow the user to not be concerned about whether he's running pfb/nfb or rfb but in the event that a system, not currently planned, has both Xsun and Xorg it would need pfb/nfb to be plumbed to the pfb/nfb modules for Xsun and to the rfb modules for Xorg. We've not found a way to do this gracefully. We think it unlikely that a user, other than a developer prepping for the Xsun/Xorg transition, would want to have both Xsun and Xorg on his system. It seems cleanest to transition the user-visible name to rfb when the system is configured to run Xorg. Recognizing that we have been teaching our users that pfb is the driver for the XVR-50 and XVR-100, and that nfb is the driver for the XVR-300, we think it makes sense to help the transition for those users that need to know the device/driver binding. A conventional way for users to tell what SPARC graphics devices they have is to use the command "fbconfig -list". That command produces a two-column list, each row of which gives the /dev/fbs entry for a device and the name of that device's configuration utility. We'll modify the -list output to include a third column for the device type, e.g. showing that /dev/fbs/rfb0 binds to XVR-300, that /dev/fbs/kfb0 binds to XVR-2500, and so forth. -- Eric Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Darren J Moffat wrote: >> Garrett D'Amore wrote: >>> Eric Sultan wrote: >>>> I'm not sure I properly understand the dimensions of the problem. >>>> Wherever Xsun has been EOL'd and removed, there should not be any >>>> compatibility issues. When Xsun is removed, so must Xsun-only >>>> components such as nfb and pfb. Issues of coexistence could occur >>>> in systems that support both Xsun and Xorg, and so might want both >>>> nfb/pfb or rfb. If this is an issue, the driver binding can be >>>> unambiguously specified in the /etc/driver_aliases file. >>>> >>>> Using the rfb code as a drop-in replacement for the nfb/pfb code >>>> doesn't solve the problem. When one *wants* to run Xsun on a >>>> system that has both Xsun and Xorg support, one would need the old >>>> nfb or pfb drivers instead of the Xorg-compliant rfb driver. >>>> Renaming rfb as nfb and pfb wouldn't get the job done, would it? >>>> >>>> Am I missing something here? >>> >>> Yes, I think you are. >>> >>> What I'm talking about is an upgrade of Solaris 10 (or earlier!) to >>> Solaris Nevada (or later). To be quite honest, I doubt many people >>> care whether Xsun or Xorg is running on their system, provided that >>> they have *X11* for their *hardware*. >> >> There is no such upgrade path at the moment (S10 or SX:CE to >> OpenSolaris IPS based system) so lets not assume that *if* one is >> developed it can't be taught to deal with this problem of switching >> from Xsun (and its associated kernel drivers) to Xorg. At this time >> we don't even know if the hardware that the new rfb driver will be >> supported on these future releases because we don't know when they are. > > I'm unhappy with designs which exclusively rely on OpenSolaris being > non-upgradeable, particularly if the product in question is intended > for SX:CE (and ultimately possibly some future Solaris 11 product). > Right now the relationship between SX:CE (and indeed Solaris itself) > and OpenSolaris releases is not adequately defined, I think, to say > that no upgrade path will ever be desired by some significant > percentage of Sun customers. > > (Put another way--- IPS not being upgradeable isn't a problem, since > its not a Solaris Express technology -- yet, but I think this case is > different because the new driver is equally applicable to both Solaris > Express and OpenSolaris. And more to the point, the EOF of Xsun is > relevant to Solaris Express. > >> >> If you are running S10 or SPARC today or SX:CE on SPARC and upgrade >> to an SX:CE release then the default is still Xsun and the older >> pfb/nfb drivers will still be in your driver_aliases. If someone >> wishes to manually switch to Xorg/rfb on SX:CE then that is a >> concious choice and will require manual intervention - documentation >> of how to do that would be an excellent thing for this case to provide. > > However, at some time soon, I believe, the Xsun drivers will go away, > and all that will remain will be this new driver. Its worth some > effort to try to make the upgrade smooth as possible. > >> >> If you install the yet to be released OpenSolaris on SPARC the you >> won't have Xsun and never will have had it or pfb/nfb you only have >> Xorg and >> this rfb delivered by this case. >> >> You are really solving a problem that doesn't exist, lets not give >> the project team more work to do. > > I don't think the problem doesn't exist, or I wouldn't have mentioned > it. I'm not worried about just OpenSolaris, but Solaris Express. > >> >>> That's why I'm proposing that you treat rfb as a drop in. It >>> doesn't have to drop in to Xsun, but it should drop in from a >>> user-experience perspective. (Modulo some known differences, such >>> as lack of Display PostScript.) >> >> I think in this case it is a bad idea. This isn't like the problems >> seen in networking drivers. By requiring rfb to be a dropin >> replacement for pfb/nfb you means more work for the project team to >> solve a problem that I really don't think exists. I believe we will >> have better architecture by not forcing rfb to be a drop in >> replacement for the old Xsun based architecture. > > /etc/driver_aliases conflicts are a major PITA. There are hackish > workarounds, but its far better, IMO, to avoid the conflict in the > first place, if possible. > > There is also some user accessible knobs (/dev/fb/ links, for > example), where its better, IMO, if we don't change the knobs. > >> >> For comparison the equivalent thing was not required of x86 when it >> made the switch from Xsun to Xorg. >> > > That's an interesting datapoint. I'm not sure how good the comparison > is though, given the very different architecture of how framebuffer > drivers work on x86 versus SPARC. (IIUC, most of the Xsun drivers > did not have kernel drivers with them, apart from some kind of generic > VGA/VESA mapping driver, whereas the SPARC framebuffer drivers do far > more including full rendering of the text console. But maybe someone > else will correct me if I've misunderstood.) > > In any case, all of my comments in this case are at most TCA class > advisories/requests, and I don't think the work is terribly > complicated. If analysis shows otherwise, or there are other reasons > not to take the effort, then I wouldn't object to just delivering > rfb. (But I *suspect* that the work required is an hour or two at > most, not weeks or even days of effort.) If we can save a few tens of > hours dealing with service calls by an upfront hour in engineering, I > generally think its a good tradeoff. > > But then, my view has always been that it is appropriate for ARC > members to request or recommend that project teams do more work if it > can improve the project. Project teams working with business teams > ultimately make the decision about whether the work is justified or not. > > Anyway, in this case, I already spent about 30 mins on the phone with > Eric Sultan talking about my concerns, and how to address them, and > offered some specific example code to look at. Eric graciously agreed > to think about it, and get back to me. And ultimately, if he tells me > the project team has decided not to pursue my suggestions for one > reason or another, then I'll be fine with it. (And I'll be confident > that at least the decision that was made was done from an informed > point of view, which is really all any of us can ask.) > > -- Garrett > From gdamore@sun.com Tue Sep 2 14:41:30 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m82LfTkr022057 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m82LfBcv017240; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 05:41:26 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6L00L07891UD00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:41:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6L00GI0890S180@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m82LfOI3012392; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6L00C0187PV300@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from gdamore@sun.com) ; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:41:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.7.251.172] by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6L00E1288Y9R00@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com>; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:40:49 -0700 From: "Garrett D'Amore" Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48BDB0F4.1090507@Sun.COM> Sender: Garrett.Damore@sun.com To: Eric.Sultan@sun.com Cc: Darren J Moffat , Alan Coopersmith , Eric Sultan , PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <48BDB2E1.5000405@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> <48BC1920.9010401@sun.com> <48BDB0F4.1090507@Sun.COM> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080616) Content-Length: 8951 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000015 This sounds like a reasonable compromise. I would like to see the case of upgrades between SX:CE releases well handled at some point, though. (I.e. the upgrade should probably remove or deconfigure the pfb package and *configure* the rfb package.) Perhaps this should happen with whatever putbacks finally EOF Xsun (and hence pfb and nfb)? Unless we either don't care about SX anymore, or we are willing to defer the EOF of Xsun to OpenSolaris (not SX). -- Garrett Eric Sultan wrote: > I've considered Garrett's concerns and had a small out-of-band > discussion with him to be sure I understood his perspective. I > concede his point, and discussed it with the project team and tried to > find a way to accommodate the concern about renaming support for an > existing device. > > I'd considered using a thin layer in the kernel to allow the user to > continue to use the nfb and pfb names, while plumbing to the rfb > modules. This could allow the user to not be concerned about whether > he's running pfb/nfb or rfb but in the event that a system, not > currently planned, has both Xsun and Xorg it would need pfb/nfb to be > plumbed to the pfb/nfb modules for Xsun and to the rfb modules for > Xorg. We've not found a way to do this gracefully. > > We think it unlikely that a user, other than a developer prepping for > the Xsun/Xorg transition, would want to have both Xsun and Xorg on his > system. It seems cleanest to transition the user-visible name to rfb > when the system is configured to run Xorg. > > Recognizing that we have been teaching our users that pfb is the > driver for the XVR-50 and XVR-100, and that nfb is the driver for the > XVR-300, we think it makes sense to help the transition for those > users that need to know the device/driver binding. A conventional way > for users to tell what SPARC graphics devices they have is to use the > command "fbconfig -list". That command produces a two-column list, > each row of which gives the /dev/fbs entry for a device and the name > of that device's configuration utility. We'll modify the -list output > to include a third column for the device type, e.g. showing that > /dev/fbs/rfb0 binds to XVR-300, that /dev/fbs/kfb0 binds to XVR-2500, > and so forth. > > -- Eric > > Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> Darren J Moffat wrote: >>> Garrett D'Amore wrote: >>>> Eric Sultan wrote: >>>>> I'm not sure I properly understand the dimensions of the problem. >>>>> Wherever Xsun has been EOL'd and removed, there should not be any >>>>> compatibility issues. When Xsun is removed, so must Xsun-only >>>>> components such as nfb and pfb. Issues of coexistence could occur >>>>> in systems that support both Xsun and Xorg, and so might want both >>>>> nfb/pfb or rfb. If this is an issue, the driver binding can be >>>>> unambiguously specified in the /etc/driver_aliases file. >>>>> >>>>> Using the rfb code as a drop-in replacement for the nfb/pfb code >>>>> doesn't solve the problem. When one *wants* to run Xsun on a >>>>> system that has both Xsun and Xorg support, one would need the old >>>>> nfb or pfb drivers instead of the Xorg-compliant rfb driver. >>>>> Renaming rfb as nfb and pfb wouldn't get the job done, would it? >>>>> >>>>> Am I missing something here? >>>> >>>> Yes, I think you are. >>>> >>>> What I'm talking about is an upgrade of Solaris 10 (or earlier!) to >>>> Solaris Nevada (or later). To be quite honest, I doubt many people >>>> care whether Xsun or Xorg is running on their system, provided that >>>> they have *X11* for their *hardware*. >>> >>> There is no such upgrade path at the moment (S10 or SX:CE to >>> OpenSolaris IPS based system) so lets not assume that *if* one is >>> developed it can't be taught to deal with this problem of switching >>> from Xsun (and its associated kernel drivers) to Xorg. At this time >>> we don't even know if the hardware that the new rfb driver will be >>> supported on these future releases because we don't know when they are. >> >> I'm unhappy with designs which exclusively rely on OpenSolaris being >> non-upgradeable, particularly if the product in question is intended >> for SX:CE (and ultimately possibly some future Solaris 11 product). >> Right now the relationship between SX:CE (and indeed Solaris itself) >> and OpenSolaris releases is not adequately defined, I think, to say >> that no upgrade path will ever be desired by some significant >> percentage of Sun customers. >> >> (Put another way--- IPS not being upgradeable isn't a problem, since >> its not a Solaris Express technology -- yet, but I think this case is >> different because the new driver is equally applicable to both >> Solaris Express and OpenSolaris. And more to the point, the EOF of >> Xsun is relevant to Solaris Express. >> >>> >>> If you are running S10 or SPARC today or SX:CE on SPARC and upgrade >>> to an SX:CE release then the default is still Xsun and the older >>> pfb/nfb drivers will still be in your driver_aliases. If someone >>> wishes to manually switch to Xorg/rfb on SX:CE then that is a >>> concious choice and will require manual intervention - documentation >>> of how to do that would be an excellent thing for this case to provide. >> >> However, at some time soon, I believe, the Xsun drivers will go away, >> and all that will remain will be this new driver. Its worth some >> effort to try to make the upgrade smooth as possible. >> >>> >>> If you install the yet to be released OpenSolaris on SPARC the you >>> won't have Xsun and never will have had it or pfb/nfb you only have >>> Xorg and >>> this rfb delivered by this case. >>> >>> You are really solving a problem that doesn't exist, lets not give >>> the project team more work to do. >> >> I don't think the problem doesn't exist, or I wouldn't have mentioned >> it. I'm not worried about just OpenSolaris, but Solaris Express. >> >>> >>>> That's why I'm proposing that you treat rfb as a drop in. It >>>> doesn't have to drop in to Xsun, but it should drop in from a >>>> user-experience perspective. (Modulo some known differences, such >>>> as lack of Display PostScript.) >>> >>> I think in this case it is a bad idea. This isn't like the problems >>> seen in networking drivers. By requiring rfb to be a dropin >>> replacement for pfb/nfb you means more work for the project team to >>> solve a problem that I really don't think exists. I believe we >>> will have better architecture by not forcing rfb to be a drop in >>> replacement for the old Xsun based architecture. >> >> /etc/driver_aliases conflicts are a major PITA. There are hackish >> workarounds, but its far better, IMO, to avoid the conflict in the >> first place, if possible. >> >> There is also some user accessible knobs (/dev/fb/ links, for >> example), where its better, IMO, if we don't change the knobs. >> >>> >>> For comparison the equivalent thing was not required of x86 when it >>> made the switch from Xsun to Xorg. >>> >> >> That's an interesting datapoint. I'm not sure how good the >> comparison is though, given the very different architecture of how >> framebuffer drivers work on x86 versus SPARC. (IIUC, most of the >> Xsun drivers did not have kernel drivers with them, apart from some >> kind of generic VGA/VESA mapping driver, whereas the SPARC >> framebuffer drivers do far more including full rendering of the text >> console. But maybe someone else will correct me if I've misunderstood.) >> >> In any case, all of my comments in this case are at most TCA class >> advisories/requests, and I don't think the work is terribly >> complicated. If analysis shows otherwise, or there are other reasons >> not to take the effort, then I wouldn't object to just delivering >> rfb. (But I *suspect* that the work required is an hour or two at >> most, not weeks or even days of effort.) If we can save a few tens >> of hours dealing with service calls by an upfront hour in >> engineering, I generally think its a good tradeoff. >> >> But then, my view has always been that it is appropriate for ARC >> members to request or recommend that project teams do more work if it >> can improve the project. Project teams working with business teams >> ultimately make the decision about whether the work is justified or not. >> >> Anyway, in this case, I already spent about 30 mins on the phone with >> Eric Sultan talking about my concerns, and how to address them, and >> offered some specific example code to look at. Eric graciously >> agreed to think about it, and get back to me. And ultimately, if he >> tells me the project team has decided not to pursue my suggestions >> for one reason or another, then I'll be fine with it. (And I'll be >> confident that at least the decision that was made was done from an >> informed point of view, which is really all any of us can ask.) >> >> -- Garrett >> > From John.Plocher@sun.com Tue Sep 2 14:50:46 2008 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m82LokLG022392 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:50:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m82LogS9007646; Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6L00L0B8OK3U00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:50:44 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6L00KTX8OK1610@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:50:44 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m82Loi7N023840; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6L001018KUZE00@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from John.Plocher@Sun.COM); Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wp668.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.146.226.219]) by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6L00E158O99R40@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com>; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:50:28 -0700 From: John Plocher Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48BDB0F4.1090507@Sun.COM> Sender: John.Plocher@sun.com To: Eric.Sultan@sun.com Cc: "Garrett D'Amore" , Alan Coopersmith , PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com Message-id: <48BDB524.2030704@Sun.Com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> <48BC1920.9010401@sun.com> <48BDB0F4.1090507@Sun.COM> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) Content-Length: 220 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000016 Eric Sultan wrote: > while plumbing to the rfb modules. How stuck are we with the name "rfb"? There were (IMO reasonable) comments earlier about how the name may cause confusion/clash with other stuff... -John From Darren.Moffat@sun.com Wed Sep 3 02:48:31 2008 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m839mU5W009636 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 02:48:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m839mTV1019355; Wed, 3 Sep 2008 03:48:30 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6M00A035WTSV00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:48:29 -0600 (MDT) Received: from gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com ([192.18.6.21]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6M00HNT5WN7890@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:48:29 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-emea-09.sun.com (gmp-eb-lb-2-fe3.eu.sun.com [192.18.6.12]) by gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m839mNKU005494; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:48:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-emea-09.sun.com by fe-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6M00C015ABIG00@fe-emea-09.sun.com> (original mail from Darren.Moffat@Sun.COM); Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:48:23 +0100 (BST) Received: from [129.156.173.21] by fe-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6M00MVI5W74PB0@fe-emea-09.sun.com>; Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:48:10 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:48:07 +0100 From: Darren J Moffat Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48BDB2E1.5000405@sun.com> Sender: Darren.Moffat@sun.com To: "Garrett D'Amore" Cc: Eric.Sultan@sun.com, Alan Coopersmith , Eric Sultan , PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <48BE5D57.9010905@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> <48BC1920.9010401@sun.com> <48BDB0F4.1090507@Sun.COM> <48BDB2E1.5000405@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080811) Content-Length: 668 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000017 Garrett D'Amore wrote: > This sounds like a reasonable compromise. > > I would like to see the case of upgrades between SX:CE releases well > handled at some point, though. (I.e. the upgrade should probably remove > or deconfigure the pfb package and *configure* the rfb package.) > Perhaps this should happen with whatever putbacks finally EOF Xsun (and > hence pfb and nfb)? > > Unless we either don't care about SX anymore, or we are willing to defer > the EOF of Xsun to OpenSolaris (not SX). Xsun was never in OpenSolaris so it effectively has already happened there. Only SX:CE and released products such as Solaris 10 have Xsun. -- Darren J Moffat From Eric.Sultan@sun.com Thu Sep 4 14:10:52 2008 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m84LAqFo015285 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 14:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m84LApS1011005; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 14:10:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6O0090JW62GQ00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.98.34]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6O0020XW62NKD0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m84LAooE024533; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:10:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6O00401V7XK200@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Eric.Sultan@Sun.COM); Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:10:50 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [129.146.94.117] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6O00KR8W5VGM80@mail-amer.sun.com>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:10:44 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:10:43 -0700 From: Eric Sultan Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48BE5D57.9010905@Sun.COM> Sender: Eric.Sultan@sun.com To: PSARC-ext@sun.com Cc: Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Reply-to: Eric.Sultan@sun.com Message-id: <48C04ED3.1010307@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> <48BC1920.9010401@sun.com> <48BDB0F4.1090507@Sun.COM> <48BDB2E1.5000405@sun.com> <48BE5D57.9010905@Sun.COM> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070622) Content-Length: 296 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000018 It has been pointed out that VNC uses a remote framebuffer protocol named "rfb", and that the name might therefore not be a good choice for the Xorg-compliant driver for the XVR-50, -100, and -300. Accordingly, the project team has agreed to use a new name, efb, for this project. -- Eric From gdamore@sun.com Thu Sep 4 15:26:34 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m84MQXGX017742 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:26:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m84MQP0M004452; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:26:31 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6O00C0BZO4T900@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6O00CM1ZO42170@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m84MQSWU003671; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6O00D01ZL5OY00@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from gdamore@sun.com) ; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.7.251.172] by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6O0089AZNYF120@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:26:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:25:39 -0700 From: "Garrett D'Amore" Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48C04ED3.1010307@Sun.COM> Sender: Garrett.Damore@sun.com To: Eric.Sultan@sun.com Cc: PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <48C06063.3060800@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> <48BC1920.9010401@sun.com> <48BDB0F4.1090507@Sun.COM> <48BDB2E1.5000405@sun.com> <48BE5D57.9010905@Sun.COM> <48C04ED3.1010307@Sun.COM> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080616) Content-Length: 924 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000019 Eric Sultan wrote: > It has been pointed out that VNC uses a remote framebuffer protocol > named "rfb", and that the name might therefore not be a good choice > for the Xorg-compliant driver for the XVR-50, -100, and -300. > > Accordingly, the project team has agreed to use a new name, efb, for > this project. Just out of curiosity, is there any mnemonic for efb? And, is there any compelling reason why only three characters are chosen for the name? (I would have expected that in new-style Xorg that users have little, if any, reason to be exposed to the names of the framebuffer drivers.... hence a longer and more descriptive -- and perhaps less likely to collide -- name seems like it might have been a good choice.) (No, I'm not asking the project to change their name, just pointing out that if they wanted to pick a longer and more descriptive name, that I think they *could* have.) -- Garrett From Alan.Coopersmith@sun.com Thu Sep 4 15:52:04 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m84Mq3PL019136 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m84MpjsV017542; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 06:52:00 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6P00D0Z0UNXO00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6P00DD80UNKO00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m84MpxDE003462; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6P000010J9P000@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM); Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.108.215.234] ([62.50.194.37]) by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6P008PZ0TUF1C0@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:51:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:51:30 -0700 From: Alan Coopersmith Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48C06063.3060800@sun.com> Sender: Alan.Coopersmith@sun.com To: "Garrett D'Amore" Cc: Eric.Sultan@sun.com, PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <48C06672.1020106@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> <48BC1920.9010401@sun.com> <48BDB0F4.1090507@Sun.COM> <48BDB2E1.5000405@sun.com> <48BE5D57.9010905@Sun.COM> <48C04ED3.1010307@Sun.COM> <48C06063.3060800@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080728) Content-Length: 505 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000020 Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Just out of curiosity, is there any mnemonic for efb? And, is there any > compelling reason why only three characters are chosen for the name? (I > would have expected that in new-style Xorg that users have little, if > any, reason to be exposed to the names of the framebuffer drivers.... There's no real difference I'm aware of between Xsun & Xorg there. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering From Eric.Sultan@Sun.COM Thu Sep 4 15:55:20 2008 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m84MtKHQ019402 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m84MtJPR009112; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 15:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6P00M011075Q00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6P00DJT107HC60@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m84MtIc6011912; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:55:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6P007010SL3Q00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Eric.Sultan@Sun.COM); Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:55:18 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [129.146.94.117] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6P00KHS101GME0@mail-amer.sun.com>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:55:14 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:55:12 -0700 From: Eric Sultan Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48C06063.3060800@sun.com> Sender: Eric.Sultan@Sun.COM To: "Garrett D'Amore" Cc: PSARC-ext@Sun.COM, Charmaine.Lee@Sun.COM, David.Paist@Sun.COM, ron.bielaski@Sun.COM Reply-to: Eric.Sultan@Sun.COM Message-id: <48C06750.4080107@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> <48BC1920.9010401@sun.com> <48BDB0F4.1090507@Sun.COM> <48BDB2E1.5000405@sun.com> <48BE5D57.9010905@Sun.COM> <48C04ED3.1010307@Sun.COM> <48C06063.3060800@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070622) Content-Length: 1759 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000021 No, as with other graphics devices there is no particular mnemonic significance to the name. A longer, more descriptive, name could have been chosen, though shorter names are more friendly when you have to type them. efb was selected because: - It doesn't collide with anything we could find - It follows our general protocol of naming framebuffers as fb - It's the first suitable letter in the alphabet that follows the .fb format We tried to consider longer names that might have more descriptive significance but hadn't found one that resonated, and we expect that users will at times reference the device by this name and so, other things being equal, shorter is better. Any rumor that efb is "eric's framebuffer" is just that: rumor. -- Eric Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Eric Sultan wrote: >> It has been pointed out that VNC uses a remote framebuffer protocol >> named "rfb", and that the name might therefore not be a good choice >> for the Xorg-compliant driver for the XVR-50, -100, and -300. >> >> Accordingly, the project team has agreed to use a new name, efb, for >> this project. > > Just out of curiosity, is there any mnemonic for efb? And, is there > any compelling reason why only three characters are chosen for the > name? (I would have expected that in new-style Xorg that users have > little, if any, reason to be exposed to the names of the framebuffer > drivers.... hence a longer and more descriptive -- and perhaps less > likely to collide -- name seems like it might have been a good choice.) > > (No, I'm not asking the project to change their name, just pointing > out that if they wanted to pick a longer and more descriptive name, > that I think they *could* have.) > > -- Garrett > From gdamore@sun.com Thu Sep 4 21:23:40 2008 Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m854Nd2T027535 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 21:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m854NddL005867; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 21:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6P00D01G7F0W00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6P003V9G7F6220@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m854NdcO020199; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6P00B01G1YVR00@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> (original mail from gdamore@sun.com) ; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.7.251.172] by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6P00K0DG7ENW60@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:22:53 -0700 From: "Garrett D'Amore" Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48C06672.1020106@sun.com> Sender: Garrett.Damore@sun.com To: Alan Coopersmith Cc: Eric.Sultan@sun.com, PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <48C0B41D.1010704@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> <48BC1920.9010401@sun.com> <48BDB0F4.1090507@Sun.COM> <48BDB2E1.5000405@sun.com> <48BE5D57.9010905@Sun.COM> <48C04ED3.1010307@Sun.COM> <48C06063.3060800@sun.com> <48C06672.1020106@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080616) Content-Length: 707 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000022 Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> Just out of curiosity, is there any mnemonic for efb? And, is there >> any compelling reason why only three characters are chosen for the >> name? (I would have expected that in new-style Xorg that users have >> little, if any, reason to be exposed to the names of the framebuffer >> drivers.... > > There's no real difference I'm aware of between Xsun & Xorg there. > I think the old Sun style drivers had separate configuration utilities -- of course these days fbconfig has eliminated the need for users to know that. And you're right, its not an Xsun vs. Xorg, but more "new style" versus "old style" Sun framebuffer thing. -- Garrett From gdamore@sun.com Thu Sep 4 21:26:32 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m854QVC6027651 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 21:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m854QDKr001399; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 05:26:29 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6P00D01GC5BT00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:26:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6P003X2GC45U20@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m854QSSu026243; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6P00D01G66N500@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from gdamore@sun.com) ; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.7.251.172] by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6P00AP3GC32F10@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com>; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:25:43 -0700 From: "Garrett D'Amore" Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48C06750.4080107@Sun.COM> Sender: Garrett.Damore@sun.com To: Eric.Sultan@sun.com Cc: PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <48C0B4C7.6040902@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> <48BC1920.9010401@sun.com> <48BDB0F4.1090507@Sun.COM> <48BDB2E1.5000405@sun.com> <48BE5D57.9010905@Sun.COM> <48C04ED3.1010307@Sun.COM> <48C06063.3060800@sun.com> <48C06750.4080107@Sun.COM> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080616) Content-Length: 2091 Status: RO X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000023 OK. My personal preference is for a more descriptive name (at least when the name isn't something that has to be typed -- shortness trumps when names get typed often, as in NIC driver names), but it doesn't really matter that much. -- Garrett Eric Sultan wrote: > No, as with other graphics devices there is no particular mnemonic > significance to the name. A longer, more descriptive, name could have > been chosen, though shorter names are more friendly when you have to > type them. > > efb was selected because: > > - It doesn't collide with anything we could find > - It follows our general protocol of naming framebuffers as > fb > - It's the first suitable letter in the alphabet that follows the .fb > format > > We tried to consider longer names that might have more descriptive > significance but hadn't found one that resonated, and we expect that > users will at times reference the device by this name and so, other > things being equal, shorter is better. > > Any rumor that efb is "eric's framebuffer" is just that: rumor. > > -- Eric > > Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> Eric Sultan wrote: >>> It has been pointed out that VNC uses a remote framebuffer protocol >>> named "rfb", and that the name might therefore not be a good choice >>> for the Xorg-compliant driver for the XVR-50, -100, and -300. >>> >>> Accordingly, the project team has agreed to use a new name, efb, for >>> this project. >> >> Just out of curiosity, is there any mnemonic for efb? And, is there >> any compelling reason why only three characters are chosen for the >> name? (I would have expected that in new-style Xorg that users have >> little, if any, reason to be exposed to the names of the framebuffer >> drivers.... hence a longer and more descriptive -- and perhaps less >> likely to collide -- name seems like it might have been a good choice.) >> >> (No, I'm not asking the project to change their name, just pointing >> out that if they wanted to pick a longer and more descriptive name, >> that I think they *could* have.) >> >> -- Garrett >> > From Eric.Sultan@sun.com Fri Sep 5 16:17:51 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m85NHouS000613 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2008 16:17:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m85NHTxo009140; Sat, 6 Sep 2008 07:17:48 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6Q00J05WPLRZ00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:17:45 -0600 (MDT) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6Q0008DWPKLZC0@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:17:44 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-amer-09.sun.com ([192.18.109.79]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m85NHip6019768; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:17:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6Q00H01TZRL500@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Eric.Sultan@Sun.COM); Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:17:44 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [129.146.94.117] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6Q00L04WOZVE40@mail-amer.sun.com>; Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:17:24 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:17:23 -0700 From: Eric Sultan Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48C06750.4080107@Sun.COM> Sender: Eric.Sultan@sun.com To: Eric.Sultan@sun.com Cc: PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Reply-to: Eric.Sultan@sun.com Message-id: <48C1BE03.5070309@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> <48BC1920.9010401@sun.com> <48BDB0F4.1090507@Sun.COM> <48BDB2E1.5000405@sun.com> <48BE5D57.9010905@Sun.COM> <48C04ED3.1010307@Sun.COM> <48C06063.3060800@sun.com> <48C06750.4080107@Sun.COM> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070622) Status: RO Content-Length: 246 The timer having expired with no unresolved issues, I am marking this case approved. The substantive change that was made is that the driver has been named "efb" instead of "rfb" to avoid conflict with prior use of the name "rfb". -- Eric From Alan.Coopersmith@sun.com Mon Sep 8 07:44:42 2008 Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m88Eig5V017648 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 2008 07:44:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m88Eidvb025212; Mon, 8 Sep 2008 07:44:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6V00H0DSYH7700@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 08:44:41 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6V00GBQSYG0P10@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 08:44:41 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m88EieKw009266; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6V00601SPC0400@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM); Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.6.102.118] by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6V00H3TSY8PDD0@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com>; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:44:31 -0700 From: Alan Coopersmith Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48C1BE03.5070309@Sun.COM> Sender: Alan.Coopersmith@sun.com To: Eric.Sultan@sun.com Cc: PSARC-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <48C53A4F.9060301@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> <48BC1920.9010401@sun.com> <48BDB0F4.1090507@Sun.COM> <48BDB2E1.5000405@sun.com> <48BE5D57.9010905@Sun.COM> <48C04ED3.1010307@Sun.COM> <48C06063.3060800@sun.com> <48C06750.4080107@Sun.COM> <48C1BE03.5070309@Sun.COM> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071119) Status: RO Content-Length: 1428 Eric Sultan wrote: > The timer having expired with no unresolved issues, I am marking this > case approved. Sorry for the late response, but I was travelling last week and am just catching up on e-mail now. Would the following be a correct summary of the final spec? - In the "Nevada" WOS builds (aka SXCE), both the existing drivers (pfb & nfb) and the new driver (efb) will be delivered. Which is loaded depends on the ordering in /etc/driver_aliases, which is controlled by package installation order, and thus will be random depending on installation method & WOS media layout for the build in question. All users of XVR-100 & XVR-300 cards on Nevada will thus be responsible for knowing which driver is for Xsun vs. Xorg and manually pkgrm'ing the driver they don't want after each OS install/upgrade. How will SXCE & internal Nevada users be informed of this flag day/installation requirement? - In the "Indiana" WOS builds (aka OpenSolaris), only efb will be delivered, and pfb & nfb will not be. - There are no plans to backport this to prior Solaris releases, such as Solaris 10, and if those plans are ever made in the future, a new ARC case will be brought forward then to figure out the additional complications of this model in the patch & update release world. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering From Eric.Sultan@sun.com Mon Sep 8 15:39:59 2008 Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m88Mdxt6007594 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 2008 15:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m88MdwDi016871; Mon, 8 Sep 2008 15:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6W00409EYM2600@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:39:58 -0600 (MDT) Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6W001HMEYMKZ10@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:39:58 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m88Mdwnn021775; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:39:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6W00501ELM6F00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Eric.Sultan@Sun.COM); Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:39:58 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [129.146.94.117] by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6W00EB6EY9F820@mail-amer.sun.com>; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:39:49 -0600 (MDT) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:39:45 -0700 From: Eric Sultan Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48C53A4F.9060301@sun.com> Sender: Eric.Sultan@sun.com To: Alan Coopersmith Cc: psarc-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Reply-to: Eric.Sultan@sun.com Message-id: <48C5A9B1.3030101@Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> <48BC1920.9010401@sun.com> <48BDB0F4.1090507@Sun.COM> <48BDB2E1.5000405@sun.com> <48BE5D57.9010905@Sun.COM> <48C04ED3.1010307@Sun.COM> <48C06063.3060800@sun.com> <48C06750.4080107@Sun.COM> <48C1BE03.5070309@Sun.COM> <48C53A4F.9060301@sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070622) Status: RO Content-Length: 2038 This is almost correct.  The project doesn't plan to deliver into the nevada builds, but if it becomes important to do so, your first point would be correct.  Your second and third points are correct statements.

  -- Eric


Alan Coopersmith wrote: 
Eric Sultan wrote:
  
The timer having expired with no unresolved issues, I am marking this
case approved.
    

Sorry for the late response, but I was travelling last week and am just
catching up on e-mail now.

Would the following be a correct summary of the final spec?

- In the "Nevada" WOS builds (aka SXCE), both the existing drivers (pfb
  & nfb) and the new driver (efb) will be delivered.   Which is loaded
  depends on the ordering in /etc/driver_aliases, which is controlled
  by package installation order, and thus will be random depending on
  installation method & WOS media layout for the build in question.
  All users of XVR-100 & XVR-300 cards on Nevada will thus be responsible
  for knowing which driver is for Xsun vs. Xorg and manually pkgrm'ing
  the driver they don't want after each OS install/upgrade.   How will
  SXCE & internal Nevada users be informed of this flag day/installation
  requirement?

- In the "Indiana" WOS builds (aka OpenSolaris), only efb will be delivered,
  and pfb & nfb will not be.

- There are no plans to backport this to prior Solaris releases, such as
  Solaris 10, and if those plans are ever made in the future, a new ARC
  case will be brought forward then to figure out the additional complications
  of this model in the patch & update release world.

From Alan.Coopersmith@sun.com Mon Sep 8 16:33:31 2008 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m88NXV4r010376 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:33:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m88NXQgK031337; Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:33:30 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6W00B09HFTE700@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:33:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6W004BWHFTU5A0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:33:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m88NXTZK009011; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:33:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6W00501HBZY800@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> (original mail from Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM); Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:33:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from almas.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.106.93]) by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6W002XCHF9AV10@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com>; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:33:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:33:09 -0700 From: Alan Coopersmith Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48C5A9B1.3030101@Sun.COM> Sender: Alan.Coopersmith@sun.com To: Eric.Sultan@sun.com Cc: psarc-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, Ron.Bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <48C5B635.5040200@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> <48BC1920.9010401@sun.com> <48BDB0F4.1090507@Sun.COM> <48BDB2E1.5000405@sun.com> <48BE5D57.9010905@Sun.COM> <48C04ED3.1010307@Sun.COM> <48C06063.3060800@sun.com> <48C06750.4080107@Sun.COM> <48C1BE03.5070309@Sun.COM> <48C53A4F.9060301@sun.com> <48C5A9B1.3030101@Sun.COM> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071203) Status: RO Content-Length: 1913 So how are you delivering into the OpenSolaris builds without going through the Nevada WOS? -alan- Eric Sultan wrote: > This is almost correct. The project doesn't plan to deliver into the > nevada builds, but if it becomes important to do so, your first point > would be correct. Your second and third points are correct statements. > > -- Eric > > > Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> Eric Sultan wrote: >> >>> The timer having expired with no unresolved issues, I am marking this >>> case approved. >>> >> >> Sorry for the late response, but I was travelling last week and am just >> catching up on e-mail now. >> >> Would the following be a correct summary of the final spec? >> >> - In the "Nevada" WOS builds (aka SXCE), both the existing drivers (pfb >> & nfb) and the new driver (efb) will be delivered. Which is loaded >> depends on the ordering in /etc/driver_aliases, which is controlled >> by package installation order, and thus will be random depending on >> installation method & WOS media layout for the build in question. >> All users of XVR-100 & XVR-300 cards on Nevada will thus be responsible >> for knowing which driver is for Xsun vs. Xorg and manually pkgrm'ing >> the driver they don't want after each OS install/upgrade. How will >> SXCE & internal Nevada users be informed of this flag day/installation >> requirement? >> >> - In the "Indiana" WOS builds (aka OpenSolaris), only efb will be delivered, >> and pfb & nfb will not be. >> >> - There are no plans to backport this to prior Solaris releases, such as >> Solaris 10, and if those plans are ever made in the future, a new ARC >> case will be brought forward then to figure out the additional complications >> of this model in the patch & update release world. >> >> > -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering From gdamore@sun.com Mon Sep 8 20:09:33 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8939WRV018515 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 2008 20:09:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m8939Glo010000; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:09:29 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6W00L03RFQZ400@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:09:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6W00L9TRFQPY10@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:09:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m8939PlM002768; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:09:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6W00901RD7J200@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> (original mail from gdamore@sun.com) ; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:09:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.7.251.172] by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6W00DZ2RFNP050@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com>; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 20:08:20 -0700 From: "Garrett D'Amore" Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <48C5A9B1.3030101@Sun.COM> Sender: Garrett.Damore@sun.com To: Eric.Sultan@sun.com Cc: Alan Coopersmith , psarc-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com, ron.bielaski@sun.com Message-id: <48C5E8A4.3040808@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200808282142.m7SLgbP8011377@thirdreef.sfbay.sun.com> <48B72056.7080207@sun.com> <48B726A4.1000902@sun.com> <48B72AE6.7010908@Sun.COM> <48B72BDB.8070006@sun.com> <48B72EAB.1040208@sun.com> <48B83DC9.10503@Sun.COM> <48B840BD.10701@sun.com> <48B86338.7000100@Sun.COM> <48B86682.2090405@sun.com> <48BBB563.8030808@Sun.COM> <48BC1920.9010401@sun.com> <48BDB0F4.1090507@Sun.COM> <48BDB2E1.5000405@sun.com> <48BE5D57.9010905@Sun.COM> <48C04ED3.1010307@Sun.COM> <48C06063.3060800@sun.com> <48C06750.4080107@Sun.COM> <48C1BE03.5070309@Sun.COM> <48C53A4F.9060301@sun.com> <48C5A9B1.3030101@Sun.COM> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080616) Status: RO Content-Length: 1889 Eric Sultan wrote: > This is almost correct. The project doesn't plan to deliver into the > nevada builds, but if it becomes important to do so, your first point > would be correct. Your second and third points are correct statements. I think it would be best to deliver into Nevada and Indiana at the same time, and possibly revoke pfb/nfb at the same time. Unless there are compelling reasons not to do this? -- Garrett > > -- Eric > > > Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> Eric Sultan wrote: >> >>> The timer having expired with no unresolved issues, I am marking this >>> case approved. >>> >> >> Sorry for the late response, but I was travelling last week and am just >> catching up on e-mail now. >> >> Would the following be a correct summary of the final spec? >> >> - In the "Nevada" WOS builds (aka SXCE), both the existing drivers (pfb >> & nfb) and the new driver (efb) will be delivered. Which is loaded >> depends on the ordering in /etc/driver_aliases, which is controlled >> by package installation order, and thus will be random depending on >> installation method & WOS media layout for the build in question. >> All users of XVR-100 & XVR-300 cards on Nevada will thus be responsible >> for knowing which driver is for Xsun vs. Xorg and manually pkgrm'ing >> the driver they don't want after each OS install/upgrade. How will >> SXCE & internal Nevada users be informed of this flag day/installation >> requirement? >> >> - In the "Indiana" WOS builds (aka OpenSolaris), only efb will be delivered, >> and pfb & nfb will not be. >> >> - There are no plans to backport this to prior Solaris releases, such as >> Solaris 10, and if those plans are ever made in the future, a new ARC >> case will be brought forward then to figure out the additional complications >> of this model in the patch & update release world. >> >> > From ron.bielaski@sun.com Tue Sep 9 10:00:36 2008 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m89H0aMt012631 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m89H0ZnA012845 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:psarc-ext@sun.com>; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:00:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6X00C0HTWZYE00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for psarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT psarc-ext@sun.com); Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:00:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.11.31]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6X009DTTWYPI60@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for psarc-ext@sun.com (ORCPT psarc-ext@sun.com); Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from countit.sfbay.sun.com (countit.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.90.69]) by dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m89H0XHF063209; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:00:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from countit (countit [129.146.90.69]) by countit.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7) with SMTP id m89GtQBW029695; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:55:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:55:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Ron Bielaski Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] To: Eric.Sultan@sun.com, Alan.Coopersmith@sun.com Cc: psarc-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com Reply-to: Ron Bielaski Message-id: <200809091655.m89GtQBW029695@countit.sfbay.sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.6.2 SunOS 5.10 sun4u sparc Content-type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-MD5: u3V8GZ0SNMrpYpl8lfo5uw== X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 Status: RO Content-Length: 2032 Sanjay N. was going to help integrate. Ron From: Alan Coopersmith > >So how are you delivering into the OpenSolaris builds without going through >the Nevada WOS? > > -alan- > >Eric Sultan wrote: >> This is almost correct. The project doesn't plan to deliver into the >> nevada builds, but if it becomes important to do so, your first point >> would be correct. Your second and third points are correct statements. >> >> -- Eric >> >> >> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>> Eric Sultan wrote: >>> >>>> The timer having expired with no unresolved issues, I am marking this >>>> case approved. >>>> >>> >>> Sorry for the late response, but I was travelling last week and am just >>> catching up on e-mail now. >>> >>> Would the following be a correct summary of the final spec? >>> >>> - In the "Nevada" WOS builds (aka SXCE), both the existing drivers (pfb >>> & nfb) and the new driver (efb) will be delivered. Which is loaded >>> depends on the ordering in /etc/driver_aliases, which is controlled >>> by package installation order, and thus will be random depending on >>> installation method & WOS media layout for the build in question. >>> All users of XVR-100 & XVR-300 cards on Nevada will thus be responsible >>> for knowing which driver is for Xsun vs. Xorg and manually pkgrm'ing >>> the driver they don't want after each OS install/upgrade. How will >>> SXCE & internal Nevada users be informed of this flag day/installation >>> requirement? >>> >>> - In the "Indiana" WOS builds (aka OpenSolaris), only efb will be delivered, >>> and pfb & nfb will not be. >>> >>> - There are no plans to backport this to prior Solaris releases, such as >>> Solaris 10, and if those plans are ever made in the future, a new ARC >>> case will be brought forward then to figure out the additional complications >>> of this model in the patch & update release world. >>> >>> > >-- > -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@sun.com > Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering > From ron.bielaski@sun.com Tue Sep 9 10:04:36 2008 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m89H4ZIs013239 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:04:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m89H4VYQ011341; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:04:35 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6X00D19U3M1V00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.11.31]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6X0098SU3LPT70@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from countit.sfbay.sun.com (countit.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.90.69]) by dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m89H4WpP001869; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:04:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from countit (countit [129.146.90.69]) by countit.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7) with SMTP id m89GxP10029736; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:59:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Ron Bielaski Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] To: Eric.Sultan@sun.com, gdamore@sun.com Cc: Alan.Coopersmith@sun.com, psarc-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com Reply-to: Ron Bielaski Message-id: <200809091659.m89GxP10029736@countit.sfbay.sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.6.2 SunOS 5.10 sun4u sparc Content-type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-MD5: OZV+gd5PZXQ6/TwolGCkbg== X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 Status: RO Content-Length: 2074 The project team is not clear on the purpose and direction of Nevada and would deliver into Nevada if it makes sense. Ron From: Garrett D'Amore > >Eric Sultan wrote: >> This is almost correct. The project doesn't plan to deliver into the >> nevada builds, but if it becomes important to do so, your first point >> would be correct. Your second and third points are correct statements. > >I think it would be best to deliver into Nevada and Indiana at the same >time, and possibly revoke pfb/nfb at the same time. > >Unless there are compelling reasons not to do this? > > -- Garrett >> >> -- Eric >> >> >> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>> Eric Sultan wrote: >>> >>>> The timer having expired with no unresolved issues, I am marking this >>>> case approved. >>>> >>> >>> Sorry for the late response, but I was travelling last week and am just >>> catching up on e-mail now. >>> >>> Would the following be a correct summary of the final spec? >>> >>> - In the "Nevada" WOS builds (aka SXCE), both the existing drivers (pfb >>> & nfb) and the new driver (efb) will be delivered. Which is loaded >>> depends on the ordering in /etc/driver_aliases, which is controlled >>> by package installation order, and thus will be random depending on >>> installation method & WOS media layout for the build in question. >>> All users of XVR-100 & XVR-300 cards on Nevada will thus be responsible >>> for knowing which driver is for Xsun vs. Xorg and manually pkgrm'ing >>> the driver they don't want after each OS install/upgrade. How will >>> SXCE & internal Nevada users be informed of this flag day/installation >>> requirement? >>> >>> - In the "Indiana" WOS builds (aka OpenSolaris), only efb will be delivered, >>> and pfb & nfb will not be. >>> >>> - There are no plans to backport this to prior Solaris releases, such as >>> Solaris 10, and if those plans are ever made in the future, a new ARC >>> case will be brought forward then to figure out the additional complications >>> of this model in the patch & update release world. From gdamore@sun.com Tue Sep 9 10:17:17 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m89HHGgR013954 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:17:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m89HH95f029321; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:17:13 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6X00D3FUOMH400@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6X009DEUOMPV80@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com>; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-10.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m89HHAka015549; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-10.sun.com by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6X00101TT6RH00@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com> (original mail from gdamore@sun.com) ; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.7.251.172] by fe-sfbay-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6X00BCJUODI680@fe-sfbay-10.sun.com>; Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:17:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:15:56 -0700 From: "Garrett D'Amore" Subject: Re: rfb Xorg drivers [PSARC/2008/555 FastTrack timeout 09/05/2008] In-reply-to: <200809091659.m89GxP10029736@countit.sfbay.sun.com> Sender: Garrett.Damore@sun.com To: Ron Bielaski Cc: Eric.Sultan@sun.com, Alan.Coopersmith@sun.com, psarc-ext@sun.com, Charmaine.Lee@sun.com, David.Paist@sun.com Message-id: <48C6AF4C.1080706@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <200809091659.m89GxP10029736@countit.sfbay.sun.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080616) Status: RO Content-Length: 2569 Ron Bielaski wrote: > The project team is not clear on the purpose and direction of Nevada > and would deliver into Nevada if it makes sense. > Right now, the logical direction to integrate into OpenSolaris is to first integrate into Nevada. Bypassing Nevada requires extra effort. Nevada is still the baseline for the commercial Solaris releases, and if there is ever a Solaris 11, it will probably be based on the Nevada product. -- Garrett > Ron > > From: Garrett D'Amore > >> Eric Sultan wrote: >> >>> This is almost correct. The project doesn't plan to deliver into the >>> nevada builds, but if it becomes important to do so, your first point >>> would be correct. Your second and third points are correct statements. >>> >> I think it would be best to deliver into Nevada and Indiana at the same >> time, and possibly revoke pfb/nfb at the same time. >> >> Unless there are compelling reasons not to do this? >> >> -- Garrett >> >>> -- Eric >>> >>> >>> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>> >>>> Eric Sultan wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> The timer having expired with no unresolved issues, I am marking this >>>>> case approved. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Sorry for the late response, but I was travelling last week and am just >>>> catching up on e-mail now. >>>> >>>> Would the following be a correct summary of the final spec? >>>> >>>> - In the "Nevada" WOS builds (aka SXCE), both the existing drivers (pfb >>>> & nfb) and the new driver (efb) will be delivered. Which is loaded >>>> depends on the ordering in /etc/driver_aliases, which is controlled >>>> by package installation order, and thus will be random depending on >>>> installation method & WOS media layout for the build in question. >>>> All users of XVR-100 & XVR-300 cards on Nevada will thus be responsible >>>> for knowing which driver is for Xsun vs. Xorg and manually pkgrm'ing >>>> the driver they don't want after each OS install/upgrade. How will >>>> SXCE & internal Nevada users be informed of this flag day/installation >>>> requirement? >>>> >>>> - In the "Indiana" WOS builds (aka OpenSolaris), only efb will be delivered, >>>> and pfb & nfb will not be. >>>> >>>> - There are no plans to backport this to prior Solaris releases, such as >>>> Solaris 10, and if those plans are ever made in the future, a new ARC >>>> case will be brought forward then to figure out the additional >>>> > complications > >>>> of this model in the patch & update release world. >>>> > > > >