r300 driver in extras?

[David Woodhouse]

On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 15:47 +0300, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> It seems that the only difference in Mesa when the r300 is enabled is 
> that an extra file (r300_dri.so) is installed in /usr/lib64/dri, and 
> that the only difference in the kernel is the drm module is patched to 
> not recognize the r300 PCI ids.  It seems that the Mesa problem could be 
> easily fixed, but what is the easiest way to fix the kernel (aside from 
> providing my own (un)patched kernel)?

We could make the crippling of R300 _optional_, by doing it with the
patch below instead of just by ripping the relevant PCI IDs out.

DaveJ?

--- linux-2.6.16.ppc/drivers/char/drm/radeon_cp.c~	2006-03-20 05:53:29.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-2.6.16.ppc/drivers/char/drm/radeon_cp.c	2006-03-31 18:26:00.000000000 +0100
@@ -34,6 +34,11 @@
 #include "radeon_drv.h"
 #include "r300_reg.h"
 
+int radeon_allow_r300;
+
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(allow_r300, "Allow DRI on Radeon R300 and later cards");
+module_param_named(allow_r300, radeon_allow_r300, int, 0444);
+
 #define RADEON_FIFO_DEBUG	0
 
 static int radeon_do_cleanup_cp(drm_device_t * dev);
@@ -2104,6 +2109,11 @@ int radeon_driver_load(struct drm_device
 	drm_radeon_private_t *dev_priv;
 	int ret = 0;
 
+	if (!radeon_allow_r300 && (flags & CHIP_FAMILY_MASK) >= CHIP_R300) {
+		printk(KERN_NOTICE "Avoiding DRI on Radeon R300+. Use 'allow_r300=1' module option to override\n");
+		return DRM_ERR(ENXIO);
+	}
+
 	dev_priv = drm_alloc(sizeof(drm_radeon_private_t), DRM_MEM_DRIVER);
 	if (dev_priv == NULL)
 		return DRM_ERR(ENOMEM);

-- 
dwmw2