On Sat, 2004-03-13 at 04:54, Jon Smirl wrote: > > The code for the proposed IOCTLs is written and tested. They would be added one > at a time.
Do you have a patch for us to look at? > 3) BLANK - simple call to allow Vesa power management to blank the display. > > A fourth call will be a driver specific call for setting the video mode. I am > implementing this by completely computing the register values needed to set the > mode in user space. I then pass these as a struct to the IOCTL and the driver > sets the mode. Doing it this way moves about 100K of code (in the radeon case vs > framebuffer) out of the kernel and into user space. Is the verification of the input data really that much smaller? I still don't quite see the point of duplicating framebuffer device functionality in the DRM... -- Earthling Michel DÃnzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Libre software enthusiast | http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
