On Fre, 2003-02-28 at 23:11, Philip Brown wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 05:06:15PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > 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? > > is your definition of "many architectures" == "many variants of linux" ?
Many ports of Linux, yes. I would have said 'platform' had I meant multiple OSs. -- 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
