On Fre, 2003-02-28 at 17:02, Jon Smirl wrote: > --- Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It would be simple to lift the mode setting and > > > hardware identification code out of the fb drivers > >.... > > > > But what would be the advantage over leaving it as a > > framebuffer device > > or whatever in the first place? > > > The X philosophy is to ship a complete system for all > supported OS's. Moving the code from framebuffer to > DRM would remove the requirement for framebuffer to be > loaded. > > I haven't look at this but if the DRM modules know > about setting up the hardware and changing resolutions > then there may be no need for framebuffer any more. > You could write a generic framebuffer driver that was > implemented in terms of the DRM interface. But this > wasn't part of the intial idea.
But what's the point, instead of simply using the framebuffer device, which has been established and is needed for console on many architectures? *shrug* I could see the DRM providing a wrapper interface for a framebuffer device, or other ways of cooperation between the two, but this seems a strange idea. Maybe that's just me though. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
