| |||||||||||||
Packard on the state of Linux graphicsPackard on the state of Linux graphicsPosted Apr 27, 2009 9:09 UTC (Mon) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018)In reply to: Packard on the state of Linux graphics by mjr Parent article: Packard on the state of Linux graphics
Nope, from the article:
"UXA simply skips the parts of EXA which are not necessary in a GEM world."
(Log in to post comments)
Packard on the state of Linux graphics Posted Apr 27, 2009 11:22 UTC (Mon) by mjr (guest, #6979) [Link]
Was this comment spurred by further knowledge than a simplified description in the article?
Packard on the state of Linux graphics Posted Apr 27, 2009 13:59 UTC (Mon) by makomk (guest, #51493) [Link]
If you read the rest of the blog post, what he really means is that UXA
skips the migration of pixmaps between video card RAM and main memory, since for Intel cards they're pretty much the same thing. In fact, GEM as a whole only really works for Intel integrated graphics. (This is why it's such a headache for everyone else.)
Packard on the state of Linux graphics Posted Apr 27, 2009 14:27 UTC (Mon) by quanxian.wang (guest, #52086) [Link]
Hi, Keith
What is the big difference between GEM and TTM? 1) performance? 2) openGL? 3) overdesign?
Thanks
|
|||||||||||||